Santa's List

AI First Flight #3
Beginner FriendlyFoundry
EXP
View results
Submission Details
Severity: high
Valid

buyPresent` Burns Tokens from `presentReceiver` Instead of `msg.sender`, Enabling Unauthorized Token Confiscation

Description

buyPresent is documented as a function that lets a caller spend their own SantaTokens to purchase an NFT. However, the implementation burns tokens from presentReceiver — the address passed as an argument — rather than from msg.sender, the caller.

// SantasList.sol:175-178
function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver); // burns the RECIPIENT'S tokens, not the caller's
_mintAndIncrement();
}

SantaToken.burn has no authorization check of its own — it trusts SantasList to enforce who pays. Because buyPresent passes presentReceiver directly, any third party can call buyPresent(victim) and confiscate the victim's tokens, receiving the freshly minted NFT themselves. The victim is never consulted and no approval is required.

Attack path:

  1. Victim holds SantaTokens (received via collectPresent as an EXTRA_NICE user).

  2. Attacker calls santasList.buyPresent(victim).

  3. i_santaToken.burn(victim) destroys 1e18 of the victim's tokens.

  4. _mintAndIncrement() mints the NFT to msg.sender — the attacker, not the victim.

  5. Victim loses tokens; attacker gains an NFT; no consent or approval was involved.


Impact

  • Any address holding SantaTokens is a target. There is no opt-in, no approval, and no restriction on the caller.

  • A single call permanently destroys 1e18 of the victim's tokens.

  • Combined with H-01, the attacker can loop this attack via reentrancy to drain the entire balance in one transaction.

  • The NFT is minted to the attacker, not to the named presentReceiver, so the function does not even fulfil its stated purpose.


Proof of Concept

Test (test/unit/SantasListTest.t.sol:194):

function testUnauthorizedTokenBurnVulnerability() public {
vm.startPrank(santa);
santasList.checkList(user, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE);
santasList.checkTwice(user, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE);
vm.stopPrank();
vm.warp(santasList.CHRISTMAS_2023_BLOCK_TIME() + 1);
vm.startPrank(user);
santasList.collectPresent(); // user receives 1e18 SantaToken
vm.stopPrank();
uint256 userTokensBefore = santaToken.balanceOf(user);
assertGt(userTokensBefore, 0, "User should have tokens");
address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
// Attacker holds zero tokens. No approval. No special status.
vm.startPrank(attacker);
santasList.buyPresent(user); // burns user's tokens, mints NFT to attacker
vm.stopPrank();
uint256 userTokensAfter = santaToken.balanceOf(user);
assertLt(userTokensAfter, userTokensBefore, "User tokens burned without consent");
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(attacker), 1, "Attacker received NFT for free");
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(user), 1, "User still holds original NFT");
}

Result: The attacker, holding no tokens and having received no approval, burns the victim's tokens and receives an NFT in a single call.


Recommendation

Burn from msg.sender (the caller who is purchasing the present) and mint to presentReceiver (the intended recipient):

function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external nonReentrant {
i_santaToken.burn(msg.sender); // caller pays
_safeMint(presentReceiver, s_tokenCounter++); // recipient gets the NFT
}

This aligns the implementation with the documented intent: a token holder spends their own tokens to gift an NFT to someone else.

Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 2 hours ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

[H-03] SantasList::buyPresent burns token from presentReceiver instead of caller and also sends present to caller instead of presentReceiver.

## Description The `buyPresent` function sends the present to the `caller` of the function but burns token from `presentReceiver` but the correct method should be the opposite of it. Due to this implementation of the function, malicious caller can mint NFT by burning the balance of other users by passing any arbitrary address for the `presentReceiver` field and tokens will be deducted from the `presentReceiver` and NFT will be minted to the malicious caller. Also, the NatSpec mentions that one has to approve `SantasList` contract to burn their tokens but it is not required and even without approving the funds can be burnt which means that the attacker can burn the balance of everyone and mint a large number of NFT for themselves. `buyPresent` function should send the present (NFT) to the `presentReceiver` and should burn the SantaToken from the caller i.e. `msg.sender`. ## Vulnerability Details The vulnerability lies inside the SantasList contract inside the `buyPresent` function starting from line 172. The buyPresent function takes in `presentReceiver` as an argument and burns the balance from `presentReceiver` instead of the caller i.e. `msg.sender`, as a result of which an attacker can specify any address for the `presentReceiver` that has approved or not approved the SantasToken (it doesn't matter whether they have approved token or not) to be spent by the SantasList contract, and as they are the caller of the function, they will get the NFT while burning the SantasToken balance of the address specified in `presentReceiver`. This vulnerability occurs due to wrong implementation of the buyPresent function instead of minting NFT to presentReceiver it is minted to caller as well as the tokens are burnt from presentReceiver instead of burning them from `msg.sender`. Also, the NatSpec mentions that one has to approve `SantasList` contract to burn their tokens but it is not required and even without approving the funds can be burnt which means that the attacker can burn the balance of everyone and mint a large number of NFT for themselves. ```cpp /* * @notice Buy a present for someone else. This should only be callable by anyone with SantaTokens. * @dev You'll first need to approve the SantasList contract to spend your SantaTokens. */ function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external { @> i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver); @> _mintAndIncrement(); } ``` ## PoC Add the test in the file: `test/unit/SantasListTest.t.sol` Run the test: ```cpp forge test --mt test_AttackerCanMintNft_ByBurningTokensOfOtherUsers ``` ```cpp function test_AttackerCanMintNft_ByBurningTokensOfOtherUsers() public { // address of the attacker address attacker = makeAddr("attacker"); vm.startPrank(santa); // Santa checks user once as EXTRA_NICE santasList.checkList(user, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE); // Santa checks user second time santasList.checkTwice(user, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE); vm.stopPrank(); // christmas time 🌳🎁 HO-HO-HO vm.warp(santasList.CHRISTMAS_2023_BLOCK_TIME()); // User collects their NFT and tokens for being EXTRA_NICE vm.prank(user); santasList.collectPresent(); assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(user), 1e18); uint256 attackerInitNftBalance = santasList.balanceOf(attacker); // attacker get themselves the present by passing presentReceiver as user and burns user's SantaToken vm.prank(attacker); santasList.buyPresent(user); // user balance is decremented assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(user), 0); assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(attacker), attackerInitNftBalance + 1); } ``` ## Impact - Due to the wrong implementation of function, an attacker can mint NFT by burning the SantaToken of other users by passing their address for the `presentReceiver` argument. The protocol assumes that user has to approve the SantasList in order to burn token on their behalf but it will be burnt even though they didn't approve it to `SantasList` contract, because directly `_burn` function is called directly by the `burn` function and both of them don't check for approval. - Attacker can burn the balance of everyone and mint a large number of NFT for themselves. ## Recommendations - Burn the SantaToken from the caller i.e., `msg.sender` - Mint NFT to the `presentReceiver` ```diff + function _mintAndIncrementToUser(address user) private { + _safeMint(user, s_tokenCounter++); + } function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external { - i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver); - _mintAndIncrement(); + i_santaToken.burn(msg.sender); + _mintAndIncrementToUser(presentReceiver); } ``` By applying this recommendation, there is no need to worry about the approvals and the vulnerability - 'tokens can be burnt even though users don't approve' will have zero impact as the tokens are now burnt from the caller. Therefore, an attacker can't burn others token.

Support

FAQs

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

Give us feedback!