Puppy Raffle

AI First Flight #1
Beginner FriendlyFoundrySolidityNFT
EXP
View results
Submission Details
Severity: high
Valid

Integer Overflow in totalFees Causes Lost Fee Accounting

Root + Impact

Description

The totalFees variable is declared as uint64 but accumulates fees calculated from uint256 values. In selectWinner(), when fee (uint256) is cast to uint64 and added to totalFees, overflow can occur without reverting in Solidity 0.7.6. With an entrance fee of 1 ether and ~90 players per raffle, fees would overflow uint64 max (18.4 ETH) after just 5 raffles. This causes incorrect fee tracking and potential loss of protocol revenue.

// Storage declaration
uint64 public totalFees = 0;
// In selectWinner()
uint256 totalAmountCollected = players.length * entranceFee;
uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100;
totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee); // Overflow here!

Risk

Impact:
Protocol fees will be incorrectly tracked after overflow, potentially allowing users to withdraw more than collected or preventing legitimate fee withdrawals. With high-value raffles, millions of dollars in fees could be lost due to incorrect accounting.

Proof of Concept

// Assuming entranceFee = 1 ether
// With 100 players: fee = 20 ether per raffle
// uint64 max = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 wei (~18.4 ETH)
// After first raffle: totalFees = 20 ETH (overflows to ~1.5 ETH)
// Actual fees collected: 20 ETH
// Recorded fees: ~1.5 ETH
// Lost accounting: ~18.5 ETH

Recommended Mitigation

// Change storage to uint256
uint256 public totalFees = 0;
// In selectWinner() - no casting needed
function selectWinner() external {
// ...
uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100;
totalFees = totalFees + fee; // Safe addition with uint256
// ...
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 1 month ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

[H-05] Typecasting from uint256 to uint64 in PuppyRaffle.selectWinner() May Lead to Overflow and Incorrect Fee Calculation

## Description ## Vulnerability Details The type conversion from uint256 to uint64 in the expression 'totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee)' may potentially cause overflow problems if the 'fee' exceeds the maximum value that a uint64 can accommodate (2^64 - 1). ```javascript totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee); ``` ## POC <details> <summary>Code</summary> ```javascript function testOverflow() public { uint256 initialBalance = address(puppyRaffle).balance; // This value is greater than the maximum value a uint64 can hold uint256 fee = 2**64; // Send ether to the contract (bool success, ) = address(puppyRaffle).call{value: fee}(""); assertTrue(success); uint256 finalBalance = address(puppyRaffle).balance; // Check if the contract's balance increased by the expected amount assertEq(finalBalance, initialBalance + fee); } ``` </details> In this test, assertTrue(success) checks if the ether was successfully sent to the contract, and assertEq(finalBalance, initialBalance + fee) checks if the contract's balance increased by the expected amount. If the balance didn't increase as expected, it could indicate an overflow. ## Impact This could consequently lead to inaccuracies in the computation of 'totalFees'. ## Recommendations To resolve this issue, you should change the data type of `totalFees` from `uint64` to `uint256`. This will prevent any potential overflow issues, as `uint256` can accommodate much larger numbers than `uint64`. Here's how you can do it: Change the declaration of `totalFees` from: ```javascript uint64 public totalFees = 0; ``` to: ```jasvascript uint256 public totalFees = 0; ``` And update the line where `totalFees` is updated from: ```diff - totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee); + totalFees = totalFees + fee; ``` This way, you ensure that the data types are consistent and can handle the range of values that your contract may encounter.

Support

FAQs

Can't find an answer? Chat with us on Discord, Twitter or Linkedin.

Give us feedback!