Santa's List

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

Missing onlySanta access control on checkList() allows arbitrary state manipulation and denial of Santa's verification workflow.

Root + Impact

The checkList() function is intended to be callable only by Santa, as explicitly stated in the NatSpec comments. However, the function is not protected by the onlySanta modifier.
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L121
As a result, any arbitrary user can modify the first-pass review status of any address.

Description

The protocol relies on a two-step verification process before a user becomes eligible to collect a present:
Santa performs a first review through checkList().
Santa performs a second review through checkTwice().
The second review must exactly match the first review.
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L133
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L134
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L135
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L136
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L137
Because checkList() lacks access control, any user can arbitrarily modify the first review result of any address before Santa performs the second verification.
An attacker can therefore force the condition checked by checkTwice() to fail, preventing Santa from successfully completing the verification process.
For example:
Santa intends to classify Alice as EXTRA_NICE.
An attacker calls:
checkList(alice, Status.NAUGHTY);
Santa later performs:
checkTwice(alice, Status.EXTRA_NICE);
The transaction reverts because the stored first review no longer matches the expected second review.
As a result, Santa cannot complete the review process for the affected user.
```solidity
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L121
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L133
```
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L121
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/ai-santas-list/blob/f8b243940c9191981c11a94083173462d64412bb/src/SantasList.sol#L133

Risk

Likelihood:

High

The attack requires no privileges, no special conditions, and can be performed against any address at any time.

Impact:

The issue allows arbitrary users to corrupt protocol state and interfere with the intended review workflow.
Affected users may become permanently unable to complete Santa's verification process until the state is manually corrected. Additionally, attackers can continuously overwrite first-pass review results, repeatedly causing checkTwice() to revert and disrupting Santa's ability to process participants.
This breaks the protocol's trust assumptions and enables denial-of-service against the review and eligibility process.

Proof of Concept

Shows how it corrupts santa review process
```solidity
function test_attacker_can_prevent_second_verification() public {
address victim = makeAddr("victim");
address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
// Attacker corrupts the first review
vm.prank(attacker);
santaList.checkList(victim, SantasList.Status.NAUGHTY);
// Santa attempts intended verification
vm.prank(santaOwner);
vm.expectRevert( SantasList.SantasList__SecondCheckDoesntMatchFirst.selector ); santaList.checkTwice( victim, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE ); }
```

Recommended Mitigation

Restrict checkList() to Santa by applying the existing onlySanta modifier.
function checkList(address person, Status status) external { - remove this code
.......
.......
}
function checkList(address person, Status status) external onlySanta{ + add this code
.......
.......
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 4 hours ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

[H-01] Anyone is able to call `checkList` function in SantasList contract and prevent any address from becoming `NICE` or `EXTRA_NICE` and collect present.

## Description With the current design of the protocol, anyone is able to call `checkList` function in SantasList contract, while documentation says only Santa should be able to call it. This can be considered as an access control vulnerability, because not only santa is allowed to make the first check. ## Vulnerability Details An attacker could simply call the external `checkList` function, passing as parameter the address of someone else and the enum Status `NAUGHTY`(or `NOT_CHECKED_TWICE`, which should actually be `UNKNOWN` given documentation). By doing that, Santa will not be able to execute `checkTwice` function correctly for `NICE` and `EXTRA_NICE` people. Indeed, if Santa first checked a user and assigned the status `NICE` or `EXTRA_NICE`, anyone is able to call `checkList` function again, and by doing so modify the status. This could result in Santa unable to execute the second check. Moreover, any malicious actor could check the mempool and front run Santa just before calling `checkTwice` function to check users. This would result in a major denial of service issue. ## Impact The impact of this vulnerability is HIGH as it results in a broken mechanism of the check list system. Any user could be declared `NAUGHTY` for the first check at any time, preventing present collecting by users although Santa considered the user as `NICE` or `EXTRA_NICE`. Santa could still call `checkList` function again to reassigned the status to `NICE` or `EXTRA_NICE` before calling `checkTwice` function, but any malicious actor could front run the call to `checkTwice` function. In this scenario, it would be impossible for Santa to actually double check a `NICE` or `EXTRA_NICE` user. ## Proof of Concept Just copy paste this test in SantasListTest contract : ``` function testDosAttack() external { vm.startPrank(makeAddr("attacker")); // any user can checList any address and assigned status to naughty // an attacker could front run Santa before the second check santasList.checkList(makeAddr("user"), SantasList.Status.NAUGHTY); vm.stopPrank(); vm.startPrank(santa); vm.expectRevert(); // Santa is unable to check twice the user santasList.checkTwice(makeAddr("user"), SantasList.Status.NICE); vm.stopPrank(); } ``` ## Recommendations I suggest to add the `onlySanta` modifier to `checkList` function. This will ensure the first check can only be done by Santa, and prevent DOS attack on the contract. With this modifier, specification will be respected : "In this contract Only Santa to take the following actions: - checkList: A function that changes an address to a new Status of NICE, EXTRA_NICE, NAUGHTY, or UNKNOWN on the original s_theListCheckedOnce list." The following code will resolve this access control issue, simply by adding `onlySanta` modifier: ``` function checkList(address person, Status status) external onlySanta { s_theListCheckedOnce[person] = status; emit CheckedOnce(person, status); } ``` No malicious actor is now able to front run Santa before `checkTwice` function call. The following tests shows that doing the first check for another user is impossible after adding `onlySanta` modifier: ``` function testDosResolved() external { vm.startPrank(makeAddr("attacker")); // checklist function call will revert if a user tries to execute the first check for another user vm.expectRevert(SantasList.SantasList__NotSanta.selector); santasList.checkList(makeAddr("user"), SantasList.Status.NAUGHTY); vm.stopPrank(); } ```

Support

FAQs

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

Give us feedback!