SCSVS-ORACLE
Temporary Checklist
This checklist contains the SCSVS v0.0.1 verification levels (L1, L2 and L3) which we are currently reworking into "security testing profiles". The levels were assigned according to the SCSVS v1 ID that the test was previously covering and might differ in the upcoming version of the SCSTG and SCS Checklist.
For the upcoming of the SCSTG version we will progressively split the SCSTG tests into smaller tests, the so-called "atomic tests" and assign the new SCS profiles to their respective SCWE weaknesses.
Showing 1 to 90 of 90 entries
| SCG ID | VR ID | TEST ID | Control / SCSTG Test | Checklist |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G1 | No Test ID | Verify security of lending and borrowing the same token. | - Are there constraints to prevent lending and borrowing the same token within a single transaction? |
| - How does the protocol handle rapid price changes or flash loans involving the same token? | ||||
| - What measures are in place to prevent manipulation by exploiting lend-borrow actions? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G2 | No Test ID | Verify minimization of precision loss in calculations. | - Does the protocol avoid precision loss in deposit, withdrawal, and reward calculations? |
| - Are there any instances of division before multiplication or rounding errors that could affect calculations? | ||||
| - How does the protocol handle precision and rounding to prevent inaccuracies in financial operations? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G3 | No Test ID | Verify decimal precision consistency. | - Can variations in decimal precision from different price feeds lead to inaccuracies? |
| - If decimal precision varies, does the contract handle these variations correctly? | ||||
| - Are there measures to standardize decimal precision across different price feeds? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G4 | No Test ID | Verify avoidance of off-by-one errors. | - Can off-by-one errors occur in the contract, such as using <= instead of <? |
| - If variables are set to the length of a list or the length minus one, is this done correctly? | ||||
| - Are there any potential off-by-one errors in iterations or boundary conditions? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G5 | No Test ID | Verify prevention of rounding errors. | - Are there rounding errors that can be magnified or cause significant issues? |
| - If rounding errors occur, can they be amplified through repeated function invocations or specific conditions? | ||||
| - Are there safeguards to prevent rounding errors from adversely affecting the system or its users? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G6 | No Test ID | Verify secure reward claims implementation. | - Does the protocol properly implement AAVE/COMP reward claims? |
| - Are there any discrepancies in the implementation of reward claims for AAVE/COMP? | ||||
| - How is the accuracy of reward claims ensured and tested? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G7 | No Test ID | Verify correct handling of request confirmation numbers. | - Is the request confirmation number chosen high enough to account for potential chain re-orgs? |
| - What considerations are made to evaluate the chain's vulnerability to re-orgs? | ||||
| - Are there adjustments made to the request confirmation number based on re-org risk assessments? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G8 | No Test ID | Verify front-running protections for VRF calls. | - Are there measures implemented to prevent frontrunning of VRF calls? |
| - How does the protocol ensure user interactions are closed before initiating a VRF call? | ||||
| - What safeguards are in place to prevent exploitation of VRF call timing? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G9 | No Test ID | Verify correct nonce increments in exec transactions. | - Does the execTransactionFromModule() function increment the nonce appropriately? |
| - What mechanisms are in place to ensure the nonce is incremented? | ||||
| - Can issues arise if the nonce is not incremented in this function? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G10 | No Test ID | Verify enforcement of Ethereum Beacon Chain penalties. | - Does the application account for potential penalties or slashes from validator misbehavior? |
| - How are these potential penalties or slashes reflected in the value of rETH? | ||||
| - Are there mechanisms to manage or mitigate the impact of such penalties on rETH? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G11 | No Test ID | Verify secure management of staking rewards. | - How does the system manage rewards accrued from staking? |
| - Are these rewards properly accounted for in the management of rETH? | ||||
| - What mechanisms are in place to ensure accurate distribution of staking rewards? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G12 | No Test ID | Verify correct handling of Rocket Pool deposit burns. | - Does the system handle potential reverts in the burn() function when there is insufficient ether in the RocketDepositPool? |
| - Is there a mechanism to prevent or manage failures in the burn() function? | ||||
| - Can the application gracefully handle a revert due to insufficient ether? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G13 | No Test ID | Verify validation of precompiled code return sizes. | - Is there a check on the return data size when calling precompiled code? |
| - How does the system handle calls to precompiled code that return a size of 0? | ||||
| - What checks are in place for detecting failures in precompiled code calls? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G14 | No Test ID | Verify Variable Bounds Handling | - Have you ensured that variables do not exceed their bounds and cause reverts, even in versions greater than 0.8.0? |
| - Are there explicit checks to prevent variable underflows and overflows in all critical operations? | ||||
| - Is there any logic to handle boundary conditions for variables to avoid unintended reverts? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G15 | No Test ID | Ensure Correct Handling of Unsigned Integer Values | - Are you aware of and have you ensured that unsigned integers are never assigned negative values? |
| - Is there validation in place to prevent negative values from being assigned to unsigned integers? | ||||
| - Have you reviewed all assignments to ensure that only non-negative values are used for unsigned integers? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G16 | No Test ID | Verify Unchecked Blocks Usage | - Have you reviewed all usages of the unchecked{} block to ensure they are applied correctly? |
| - Is there a clear guarantee that no overflow or underflow occurs within unchecked{} blocks? | ||||
| - Are there sufficient tests to confirm that operations inside unchecked{} blocks do not cause unintended behavior? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-1 | S7.1.G17 | No Test ID | Prevent Time Units Overflow | - Does the contract use time units (like days) and handle them as uint8? |
| - Have you verified that all calculations involving time units are checked for potential overflow, considering their range? | ||||
| - Are there safeguards in place to prevent overflow in time-related calculations using uint8? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G1 | No Test ID | Verify Low Decimal Token Handling | - Does the contract handle tokens with low decimal precision appropriately? Verify if rounding issues are addressed. |
| - Are there checks to ensure that transactions involving low decimal tokens do not result in unintended failures or errors? | ||||
| - How does the contract handle rounding or precision issues to maintain accurate token transactions? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G2 | No Test ID | Verify Precision in Summation | - Is the summing of variables done accurately compared to separate calculations? Verify the approach used for summation. |
| - How does the contract handle precision issues in financial calculations or other critical computations? | ||||
| - Are there tests in place to verify the accuracy of summation logic and address any discrepancies? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G3 | No Test ID | Verify Mathematical Calculation Accuracy | - Have all mathematical calculations been reviewed to ensure accuracy and adherence to established rules? |
| - Is there a clear and documented approach to handle mathematical operations in the contract? | ||||
| - Are there any potential sources of error or miscalculation that need to be addressed? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G4 | No Test ID | Verify Handling of Precision Loss | - Is there potential for loss of precision in any calculations, especially those involving frequent or large numbers? |
| - Are appropriate data types used to minimize precision loss and ensure accurate results? | ||||
| - Have rounding methods and precision handling been correctly applied and verified? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G6 | No Test ID | Verify Safe Data Type Conversion | - Have you verified that expressions like 1 day are explicitly cast to avoid unintended conversions (e.g., to uint24)? |
| - Are there any expressions in the contract where implicit type conversions could lead to unexpected behavior or overflow? | ||||
| - Is type conversion handled explicitly to prevent data loss or overflow issues? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G7 | No Test ID | Verify Multiplication Before Division | - Does the contract ensure that multiplication occurs before division in calculations to preserve precision? |
| - Are there any instances where division is performed before multiplication, potentially causing precision loss? | ||||
| - Have you reviewed all calculations to confirm that multiplication precedes division where necessary? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G8 | No Test ID | Verify Correct Rounding Direction | - Is the rounding direction considered and correctly applied in accounting operations? |
| - Does the rounding direction align with the protocol’s requirements and user share calculations? | ||||
| - Have you verified that rounding is handled consistently across all relevant operations? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G9 | No Test ID | Verify Division by Zero Protection | - Is there a check in place to prevent division by zero in any calculations? |
| - Have you reviewed all divisions to ensure that denominators are never zero? | ||||
| - Are there safety checks implemented to handle potential division by zero scenarios? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G10 | No Test ID | Check for Correct Inequality Usage | - In comparisons involving < or >, have you ensured that the correct operators (≤ or ≥) are used where appropriate? |
| - Are all edge cases covered to avoid unexpected behavior due to incorrect inequality operators? | ||||
| - Have you reviewed the logic to confirm that the appropriate comparison operators are applied? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G11 | No Test ID | Validate Inline Assembly Operations | - Have you thoroughly tested and verified all mathematical operations performed in inline assembly? |
| - Is there an awareness of how inline assembly handles division by zero, overflow, or underflow differently from high-level constructs? | ||||
| - Are there checks in place to handle potential issues with inline assembly operations? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G12 | No Test ID | Ensure Edge Case Coverage in Calculations | - Have you tested calculations with minimum and maximum values for all terms to ensure accurate outcomes? |
| - Are edge cases handled correctly to prevent unexpected results in complex calculations? | ||||
| - Is there a thorough review of calculations involving numerous terms to validate behavior with extreme values? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G13 | No Test ID | Validate Type Casting Operations | - Is there any forced type casting in the contract? |
| - Have you ensured that all forced type casting operations are validated to avoid overflow or underflow issues? | ||||
| - Is there a review of all type casting to confirm that values fall within the acceptable range for the target type? | ||||
| SCSVS-ORACLE-2 | S7.2.G14 | No Test ID | Check for Rounding Errors in Calculations | - Are rounding issues addressed in the AMM's product constant formulas? |
| - Have you verified that rounding does not introduce inaccuracies in token swaps? | ||||
| - Is there a review of mathematical operations to ensure proper handling of rounding? |