Puppy Raffle

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

`totalFees` overflows due to `uint64` casting, permanently locking funds

Description

  • The totalFees state variable is updated by adding a downcasted uint64 fee derived from the total amount collected.

  • uint64 can only hold up to ~18.4 ether in wei, but fees can easily exceed this limit, causing an integer overflow.

// Root cause in the codebase with @> marks to highlight the relevant section
uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100;
@> totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee);

Risk

Likelihood:

  • This will occur when the accumulated protocol fees exceed ~18.4 ether, or if a single raffle generates more than 18.4 ether in fees.

Impact:

  • The recorded totalFees will wrap around and become much lower than the actual ETH stored in the contract.

  • This makes it permanently impossible to satisfy address(this).balance == uint256(totalFees) required to withdraw fees.

Proof of Concept

// Demonstrated in `test_totalFeesOverflow()` within `PuppyRaffleAudit.t.sol`
uint256 massiveFee = 100 ether; // Generates 20 ether fee
// 20 ether > 18.4 ether (uint64 max) -> causes wrap around

Recommended Mitigation

Use uint256 for native ETH tracking.

- uint64 public totalFees = 0;
+ uint256 public totalFees = 0;
// ...
uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100;
- totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee);
+ totalFees = totalFees + fee;
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 2 hours 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!