Puppy Raffle

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

Unsafe Downcast of Fee to `uint64` Causes Silent Overflow

Description

The totalFees variable tracks accumulated protocol fees and should accurately reflect all fees collected across raffles.

The fee is calculated as uint256 but totalFees is declared as uint64. The unsafe cast uint64(fee) silently truncates values exceeding ~18.4 ETH, causing significant fee loss.

@> uint64 public totalFees = 0;
function selectWinner() external {
// ...
uint256 totalAmountCollected = players.length * entranceFee;
uint256 prizePool = (totalAmountCollected * 80) / 100;
@> uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100;
@> totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee); // Unsafe downcast truncates large values
// ...
}

Risk

Likelihood: Medium

  • Occurs when a raffle collects significant participation (>92 ETH total, >18.4 ETH in fees)

  • Popular raffles with high entrance fees easily exceed this threshold

Impact: High

  • Protocol loses track of actual fees collected

  • Significant revenue loss for the protocol owner

Proof of Concept

  1. A popular raffle attracts many participants

  2. Total entrance fees collected result in a fee value of 20 ETH

  3. uint64 max is approximately 18.4 ETH

  4. uint64(20 ETH) overflows and wraps to approximately 1.6 ETH

  5. totalFees records 1.6 ETH instead of 20 ETH

  6. Protocol loses 18.4 ETH in untracked fees

Recommended Mitigation

- uint64 public totalFees = 0;
+ uint256 public totalFees = 0;
function selectWinner() external {
// ...
uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100;
- totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee);
+ totalFees = totalFees + fee;
// ...
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 1 hour 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!