Puppy Raffle

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

MED-03: Solidity Version 0.7.6 Lacks Built-in Overflow Protection

MED-03: Solidity Version 0.7.6 Lacks Built-in Overflow Protection

Description

The contract uses pragma solidity ^0.7.6 which does not have built-in overflow/underflow checks (introduced in 0.8.0). While the contract uses OpenZeppelin's SafeMath implicitly through ERC721 and Ownable, arithmetic operations on uint256 variables like totalFees, tokenId, and calculations in selectWinner() are not explicitly protected.

// Root cause in the codebase with @> marks to highlight the relevant section
pragma solidity ^0.7.6;
// Arithmetic operations without explicit SafeMath:
@> totalFees += fee;
@> tokenId++;
@> uint256 totalAmountCollected = players.length * entranceFee;
@> uint256 prizePool = (totalAmountCollected * 80) / 100;

Risk

Likelihood:

  • Low in practice due to value ranges

  • But theoretical overflow possible with extreme values

Impact:

  • Silent overflow/underflow could corrupt state

  • totalFees could wrap around

  • tokenId could wrap (extremely unlikely)

Proof of Concept

// Theoretical: if totalFees approaches type(uint256).max
// totalFees += fee would overflow and wrap to 0
// Similarly for tokenId after 2^256 mints (impossible in practice)

Recommended Mitigation

- pragma solidity ^0.7.6;
+ pragma solidity ^0.8.20; // Use modern version with built-in overflow checks
// Or if staying on 0.7.x, use SafeMath explicitly:
// using SafeMath for uint256;
// totalFees = totalFees.add(fee);
// tokenId = tokenId.add(1);
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 7 hours ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

[H-06] Overflow/Underflow vulnerabilty for any version before 0.8.0

## Description The PuppyRaffle.sol uses Solidity compiler version 0.7.6. Any Solidity version before 0.8.0 is prone to Overflow/Underflow vulnerability. Short example - a `uint8 x;` can hold 256 values (from 0 - 255). If the calculation results in `x` variable to get 260 as value, the extra part will overflow and we will end up with 5 as a result instead of the expected 260 (because 260-255 = 5). ## Vulnerability Details I have two example below to demonstrate the problem of overflow and underflow with versions before 0.8.0, and how to fix it using safemath: Without `SafeMath`: ``` function withoutSafeMath() external pure returns (uint256 fee){ uint8 totalAmountCollected = 20; fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100; return fee; } // fee: 1 // WRONG!!! ``` In the above code,`without safeMath`, 20x20 (totalAmountCollected \* 20) was 400, but 400 is beyond the limit of uint8, so after going to 255, it went back to 0 and started counting from there. So, 400-255 = 145. 145 was the result of 20x20 in this code. And after dividing it by 100, we got 1.45, which the code showed as 1. With `SafeMath`: ``` function withSafeMath() external pure returns (uint256 fee){ uint8 totalAmountCollected = 20; fee = totalAmountCollected.mul(20).div(100); return fee; } // fee: 4 // CORRECT!!!! ``` This code didnt suffer from Overflow problem. Because of the safeMath, it was able to calculate 20x20 as 400, and then divided it by 100, to get 4 as result. ## Impact Depending on the bits assigned to a variable, and depending on whether the value assigned goes above or below a certain threshold, the code could end up giving unexpected results. This unexpected OVERFLOW and UNDERFLOW will result in unexpected and wrong calculations, which in turn will result in wrong data being used and presented to the users. ## Recommendations Modify the code to include SafeMath: 1. First import SafeMath from openzeppelin: ``` import "@openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol"; ``` 2. then add the following line, inside PuppyRaffle Contract: ``` using SafeMath for uint256; ``` (can also add safemath for uint8, uint16, etc as per need) 3. Then modify the `require` inside `enterRaffle() function`: ```diff - require(msg.value == entranceFee * newPlayers.length, "PuppyRaffle: Must send enough to enter raffle"); + uint256 totalEntranceFee = newPlayers.length.mul(entranceFee); + require(msg.value == totalEntranceFee, "PuppyRaffle: Must send enough to enter raffle"); ``` 3. Then modify variables (`totalAmountCollected`, `prizePool`, `fee`, and `totalFees`) inside `selectWinner()` function: ```diff - uint256 totalAmountCollected = players.length * entranceFee; + uint256 totalAmountCollected = players.length.mul(entranceFee); - uint256 prizePool = (totalAmountCollected * 80) / 100; + uint256 prizePool = totalAmountCollected.mul(80).div(100); - uint256 fee = (totalAmountCollected * 20) / 100; + uint256 fee = totalAmountCollected.mul(20).div(100); - totalFees = totalFees + uint64(fee); + totalFees = totalFees.add(fee); ``` This way, the code is now safe from Overflow/Underflow vulnerabilities.

Support

FAQs

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

Give us feedback!