Puppy Raffle

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

Unsafe cast of `PuppyRaffle::fee` loses fees

Unsafe cast of PuppyRaffle::fee loses fees

Description

  • In PuppyRaffle::selectWinner their is a type cast of an uint256 to an uint64. This is an unsafe cast, and if the uint256 is larger than type(uint64).max, the value will overflow.

function selectWinner() external {
.
.
.
uint256 prizePool = (totalAmountCollected * 80) / 100;
uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100;
@> totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee);
.
.
.

The max value of an uint256 is 18446744073709551615. In terms of ETH, this is only ~18ETH. Meaning, if more than 18ETH of fees are collected, the fee cast will truncate the value.

Risk

Impact:

  • This means the feeAddress will not collect the correct amount of fees, leaving fees permanently locked in the contract.

Proof of Concept

1 - A raffle proceeds with a little more than 18ETH worth of fees
2 - The line that cast the fee as uint64 hits
3 - totalFees is incorrectly updated with a lower amount

you can replicate this in Foundry's chisel by running the following:

uint256 max = type(uint64).max
uint256 fee = max + 1
uint64(fee)
// prints 0

Recommended Mitigation

Set PuppyRaffle::totalFees to an uint256 instead of uint64, and remove the casting

- 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 4 days 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!