Santa's List

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

`buyPresent` allows burning tokens from arbitrary users and mints NFT to the caller

Description

The buyPresent function is intended to allow users to buy a present for someone else using SantaTokens. As described, the caller is expected to spend their own tokens in order to mint a present.

However, the current implementation burns SantaTokens from the presentReceiver address while minting the NFT to msg.sender. There is no check ensuring that the caller and the token owner are the same address.

As a result, any user can specify an arbitrary address as presentReceiver, burn that address’s SantaTokens, and receive the NFT themselves. This breaks the intended payer–receiver relationship and allows unauthorized token burning combined with free NFT minting.


Vulnerable Code

function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
@> i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
@> _mintAndIncrement(); // mints NFT to msg.sender
}

Risk

Likelihood: High

  • The function is publicly callable.

  • No special conditions or permissions are required.

  • Any address holding SantaTokens can be targeted.

Impact: High

  • Attackers can burn SantaTokens from arbitrary users without consent.

  • NFTs can be minted to the attacker at no cost.

  • This results in unauthorized asset destruction and creation, breaking core economic assumptions.



Proof of Concept

This test demonstrates that an attacker with no SantaTokens can call buyPresent to burn SantaTokens from a victim and mint an NFT to themselves. The victim’s token balance is reduced, while the attacker receives the NFT without any eligibility or payment checks.

function test_BuyPresent_BurnsFromVictim_MintsToAttacker() public {
address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
address victim = makeAddr("victim");
// Setup: Victim is EXTRA_NICE so they receive SantaTokens
// (Assume Santa has already checked victim twice as EXTRA_NICE)
vm.prank(victim);
santasList.collectPresent();
SantaToken santaToken = SantaToken(santasList.getSantaToken());
// Sanity check before attack
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(attacker), 0);
uint256 victimTokenBalanceBefore = santaToken.balanceOf(victim);
assertGt(victimTokenBalanceBefore, 0);
// Attacker calls buyPresent, targeting the victim
vm.prank(attacker);
santasList.buyPresent(victim);
// Victim's SantaTokens are burned
assertLt(santaToken.balanceOf(victim), victimTokenBalanceBefore);
// Attacker receives the NFT
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(attacker), 1);
// Attacker never needed SantaTokens or NICE / EXTRA_NICE status
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(attacker), 0);
}

Recommended Mitigation

Ensure that the caller is the one paying with SantaTokens and that the NFT is minted to the intended receiver. The function should not burn tokens from an arbitrary address supplied by the caller.

Specifically:

  • Burn SantaTokens from msg.sender, not from presentReceiver

  • Mint the NFT to presentReceiver

  • Rely on the SantaToken burn logic to revert if the caller lacks sufficient balance

This restores the correct payer–receiver relationship and prevents unauthorized token burning and free NFT minting.

function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
- i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
- _mintAndIncrement();
+ i_santaToken.burn(msg.sender);
+ _safeMint(presentReceiver, s_tokenCounter++);
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 4 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!