Skip to content

The Graph – Governance Upgrade Audit


The Graph team asked us to audit a new set of contracts that should enhance the existing governance system by enabling the storage of proposal outcomes and votes to better address traceability and provide a trustful source of information regarding protocol proposals.

The pull request that we have audited is the PR#362 at commit d51553b3d70c61108852f0ffe1ed249254c91e9a and the audited files are the following:



The introduced changes are modular and consist of one main GraphGovernance contract.

This contract will be governed by The Graph multi-sig and will be upgradeable using the protocol upgradeability pattern. It exposes two functions, the createProposal function that gives the possibility to store a Proposal in a mapping, and an updateProposal function that also gives the chance to update an existing proposal.

Each proposal is stored as a struct and can be looked up by the IPFS hash of its content in a bytes32 mapping. The struct data is composed of the Proposal’s votes and resolution.


We are happy to see that the proposed code is clear and modular to enhance the protocol functionalities. We must note that the PR in question is still not merged; we assume that The Graph team will merge the code as it is and that no other bugs are introduced in later changes. Two auditors have audited the code over three days, with the findings presented below.

Update: All of the following issues have been either fixed or acknowledged by the Graph team. Our analysis of the mitigations is limited to the specific changes made to cover the issues, and disregards all other unrelated changes in the codebase.

Critical Severity


High Severity


Medium Severity

[M01] Lack of event emission after sensitive action

The _initialize function of the Governed contract does not emit the NewOwnership event after setting the value of the governor to be the _initGovernor.

Consider emitting events after sensitive changes occur to facilitate tracking and notify off-chain clients following the contracts’ activity.

Update: Fixed in PR462 at commit 1714b78d1243a824f36106539b34f8a79ebf14f3.

[M02] Proposal’s update can assume prior states

The updateProposal function of the GraphGovernance contract is designed to update either the votes or the resolution of a proposal.

The function is not checking whether the new parameters for the proposal, passed as input values, are different from those stored in the proposals mapping, or even if they have been used previously.

Specifically, the _votes parameter can be reused multiple times. Even if _votes is an IPFS hash of a collection of signatures for each vote for the _proposalId, this doesn’t amount to a replay vulnerability. However, the fact that the updateProposal function call is revisiting prior data may lead to confusion.

Even worse, a proposal’s resolution can be changed from Accepted to Rejected and vice versa as many times as this function is called.

Whether this is a design choice or an unexpected outcome, consider either properly documenting this design choice or avoiding having a non-permanent or repetitive resolution on a specific proposal.

Moreover, consider adding some checks to verify that the values passed as input parameters are different from the stored or previously referenced data.

Update: Fixed in PR463 at commit 8a4fb6e5aeaf777879258ef0b4bdacde23ae30d7 where documentation describing the consequences of this design choice were added.

Low Severity

[L01] Lack of input validation

The initialize function of the GraphGovernance contract is not validating the input parameter passed in.

Consider adding proper checks to determine if the zero address is passed as an input parameter to avoid mistakenly setting the governor to a null address.

Update: Fixed in PR463 at commit f01518d1b669aeed89d3ceaa112b315cbdfb8f85.

[L02] Lack of docstrings

The IGraphGovernance interface, as well as the ProposalCreated and ProposalUpdated events, are lacking documentation in the form of docstrings or comments.

In the GraphGovernance contract, there is no documentation specifying which encoding or representation the parameters taking on IPFS hash values realize.

Consider thoroughly documenting all events and files in the codebase. When writing docstrings, consider following the Ethereum Natural Specification Format (NatSpec).

Update: Fixed in PR463 at commit e3cd5e35896b6ea6bbc794b874f98c462cf8cc21.

Notes & Additional Information

[N01] Lack of indexed parameters in events

The ProposalCreated and ProposalUpdated events of the GraphGovernance contract are lacking indexed parameters.

Consider indexing event parameters to avoid hindering the task of off-chain services searching and filtering for specific events.

Update: Fixed in PR463 at commit d7b25e5158f31b46e16dae043e1eafc7e715b989.

[N02] Useless event parameter

The ProposalCreated and ProposalUpdated events of the GraphGovernance contract are emitting the address of the msg.sender as the first parameter.

The functions emitting those events are only callable by the governor due to the onlyGovernor modifier. For this reason, there is no way that the msg.sender can be different at some point.

Since it can be known beforehand who the msg.sender is when emitting such events, consider removing this parameter from the event definitions and emissions.

Update: Fixed in PR363 at commit b1439ac9ca806234d3a4721d7594af8cf753c358.


2 Medium and other lower severity issues were found with changes recommended to improve the codebase.