Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 13/10/2023
Pot Size: $31,250 USDC
Total HM: 4
Participants: 51
Period: 7 days
Judge: 0xsomeone
Id: 295
League: ETH
Rank: 41/51
Findings: 1
Award: $14.47
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: niroh
Also found by: 0xDetermination, 0xSmartContract, 0xbrett8571, 0xdice91, 0xweb3boy, Bauchibred, Bube, DadeKuma, JCK, K42, LinKenji, Myd, SAAJ, ZanyBonzy, albahaca, castle_chain, catellatech, digitizeworx, emerald7017, fouzantanveer, hunter_w3b, invitedtea, m4ttm, rahul, xiao
14.466 USDC - $14.47
During my audit, I focused on understanding the mechanisms of Brahma, especially its signature verification, the interaction of the different accounts, and how it enhances the DeFi experience, My approach to this audit is as follows
I started by reading the documentation thoroughly to get a full grasp of the Brama protocol, what Brahma is and how they work. I spent time a considerable amount of time understanding how signatures and policies are verified as well as running different scenarios on how the validation can go wrong or be manipulated. In general, I believe the architecture of the protocol is foolproof especially the mechanism used in signature and policy validation, and the use of a double-layer screening of all transactions that is before and after execution is well thought out and great for security. As a whole, I consider the code execution to be excellent and its docs did well to express the intention and security consciousness of the developers, something worth noting would be the simplicity of the protocol and how the implementation of its functions is easy to understand there ensuring a better audit, I really had a good time auditing this protocol, below is my review of the different aspects of the codebase.
Codebase Quality Categories | Comments |
---|---|
Unit Testing | The Codebase was actually well-tested for the most part, and its use of slither and foundry enabled a better audit experience. |
Code Comments | Comments and Natspecs in general were easy to understand and straight to the point. Although in some cases more information would have made auditing easier overall on a scale of 1-10 I'll give them an 8 |
Documentation | The docs explained how users interact with the protocol and clear description of the job of each contract in scope making it easier to digest as an auditor, The docs tackled all the major contracts and their functionalities and also provided a great deal of help in understanding the implementation of their mechanisms, |
Organization | The Codebase was actually so easy and simple removing complexities making it well organized and ensuring clear distinctions between the contracts, and how they interact with each other to help make for a smoother audit |
The protocol offers comfort to the user and removes any chance of a centralization risk as all transactions and approved accounts are all user-chosen addresses. It also ensures that console owners can override the safe guard at any time without obstruction leading to a fully user-controlled experience
The mechanism used for Brahma is well thought of as it brings comfort to the user while ensuring full authority over funds to users, The implementations are very easy to grasp and work very well as far as I can tell, and due to the nature of the protocol I think it should go by easily in terms of user adoption and security as signature, committed policies and each transaction are properly validated.
There is little to no systematic risk that poses any kind of threat whatsoever to the growth and longevity of the protocol, although the implementation of upgradable contracts would have served as an easy way to solve any unforeseen risks on deployment or that surface because of other external factors later on along the life cycle of the protocol.
I applaud the Brahma team for the creation of Brahma as it is a brilliant, well-executed idea to offer automation to frequent DeFi interactions that users execute this will encourage new participation into the defi space as it increases its ease of use.
13 hours
#0 - c4-pre-sort
2023-10-22T21:10:06Z
raymondfam marked the issue as sufficient quality report
#1 - alex-ppg
2023-10-27T13:47:03Z
The report is brief but correct and details features and items about the protocol that would be garnered by actually going through the codebase. While not containing certain expected items of an analysis (i.e. recommendations), it will still be awarded a B rating.
#2 - c4-judge
2023-10-27T13:47:08Z
alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-b