Denial of Service (DoS) via Block Gas Limit in enterRaffle due to Nested Loops
Description
The PuppyRaffle::enterRaffle function allows users to enter the raffle by providing an array of participant addresses. The intended protocol design is to allow players to register by paying the appropriate entrance fee multiplied by the number of new participants.
However, the function implements a duplicate check mechanism using nested for loops that iterate over the entire players array. As the number of total participants grows over time, the gas cost of entering the raffle increases quadratically, running at an O(n²) time complexity.
Risk Assessment
Likelihood
High. The execution cost scales significantly with every new batch of participants, directly impacting subsequent honest players who attempt to join the raffle.
Impact
High. If the dynamic array size becomes sufficiently large, the transaction gas requirement will exceed the Ethereum block gas limit. This will cause all subsequent calls to enterRaffle to fail due to "Out of Gas" errors, completely bricking the primary feature of the protocol.
Proof of Concept
An attacker or a large group of legitimate users can exploit this behavior by continuously entering the raffle with a large pool of unique addresses.
Assume the
playersarray already contains 1,000 participants.A new honest user attempts to call
enterRafflewith an array of 5 new addresses.The contract executes the nested loop, forcing thousands of state reads and comparisons.
The gas required for this single transaction escalates dramatically, eventually hitting the block gas ceiling and forcing a complete transaction reversion.
Recommended Mitigation
To resolve this issue, the nested loops should be completely removed. Instead, utilize a state mapping(address => bool) to keep track of active raffle participants in O(1) constant time complexity.
Below is the recommended code change:
Lead Judging Commences
[M-01] `PuppyRaffle: enterRaffle` Use of gas extensive duplicate check leads to Denial of Service, making subsequent participants to spend much more gas than prev ones to enter
## Description `enterRaffle` function uses gas inefficient duplicate check that causes leads to Denial of Service, making subsequent participants to spend much more gas than previous users to enter. ## Vulnerability Details In the `enterRaffle` function, to check duplicates, it loops through the `players` array. As the `player` array grows, it will make more checks, which leads the later user to pay more gas than the earlier one. More users in the Raffle, more checks a user have to make leads to pay more gas. ## Impact As the arrays grows significantly over time, it will make the function unusable due to block gas limit. This is not a fair approach and lead to bad user experience. ## POC In existing test suit, add this test to see the difference b/w gas for users. once added run `forge test --match-test testEnterRaffleIsGasInefficient -vvvvv` in terminal. you will be able to see logs in terminal. ```solidity function testEnterRaffleIsGasInefficient() public { vm.startPrank(owner); vm.txGasPrice(1); /// First we enter 100 participants uint256 firstBatch = 100; address[] memory firstBatchPlayers = new address[](firstBatch); for(uint256 i = 0; i < firstBatchPlayers; i++) { firstBatch[i] = address(i); } uint256 gasStart = gasleft(); puppyRaffle.enterRaffle{value: entranceFee * firstBatch}(firstBatchPlayers); uint256 gasEnd = gasleft(); uint256 gasUsedForFirstBatch = (gasStart - gasEnd) * txPrice; console.log("Gas cost of the first 100 partipants is:", gasUsedForFirstBatch); /// Now we enter 100 more participants uint256 secondBatch = 200; address[] memory secondBatchPlayers = new address[](secondBatch); for(uint256 i = 100; i < secondBatchPlayers; i++) { secondBatch[i] = address(i); } gasStart = gasleft(); puppyRaffle.enterRaffle{value: entranceFee * secondBatch}(secondBatchPlayers); gasEnd = gasleft(); uint256 gasUsedForSecondBatch = (gasStart - gasEnd) * txPrice; console.log("Gas cost of the next 100 participant is:", gasUsedForSecondBatch); vm.stopPrank(owner); } ``` ## Recommendations Here are some of recommendations, any one of that can be used to mitigate this risk. 1. User a mapping to check duplicates. For this approach you to declare a variable `uint256 raffleID`, that way each raffle will have unique id. Add a mapping from player address to raffle id to keep of users for particular round. ```diff + uint256 public raffleID; + mapping (address => uint256) public usersToRaffleId; . . function enterRaffle(address[] memory newPlayers) public payable { require(msg.value == entranceFee * newPlayers.length, "PuppyRaffle: Must send enough to enter raffle"); for (uint256 i = 0; i < newPlayers.length; i++) { players.push(newPlayers[i]); + usersToRaffleId[newPlayers[i]] = true; } // Check for duplicates + for (uint256 i = 0; i < newPlayers.length; i++){ + require(usersToRaffleId[i] != raffleID, "PuppyRaffle: Already a participant"); - for (uint256 i = 0; i < players.length - 1; i++) { - for (uint256 j = i + 1; j < players.length; j++) { - require(players[i] != players[j], "PuppyRaffle: Duplicate player"); - } } emit RaffleEnter(newPlayers); } . . . function selectWinner() external { //Existing code + raffleID = raffleID + 1; } ``` 2. Allow duplicates participants, As technically you can't stop people participants more than once. As players can use new address to enter. ```solidity function enterRaffle(address[] memory newPlayers) public payable { require(msg.value == entranceFee * newPlayers.length, "PuppyRaffle: Must send enough to enter raffle"); for (uint256 i = 0; i < newPlayers.length; i++) { players.push(newPlayers[i]); } emit RaffleEnter(newPlayers); } ```
Rewards breakdown
Live
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
Judging
Submissions are being reviewed by our AI judge. Results will be available in a few minutes.
View all submissionsRewards Distribution
The contest is complete and the rewards are being distributed.