Santa's List

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

buyPresent Mints NFT to Caller Instead of presentReceiver

buyPresent Mints NFT to Caller Instead of presentReceiver

Description

  • The buyPresent function is intended to allow a user to pay tokens so that the specified presentReceiver receives the NFT. The function should burn the msg.sender tokens and mint the NFT directly to the presentReceiver.


  • Currently, the _mintAndIncrement() function mints the NFT to the caller (msg.sender) instead of the presentReceiver. As a result, the intended recipient does not receive the NFT, breaking the expected functionality of the gift mechanism.

function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
@> _mintAndIncrement();
}

_mintAndIncrement() sends NFT to the msg.sender :

function _mintAndIncrement() private {
_safeMint(msg.sender, s_tokenCounter++);
}

Risk

Likelihood:

  • Every call to buyPresent mints the NFT to the caller instead of the intended presentReceiver.

  • No validations exist to enforce correct recipient assignment, so this occurs every time the function is executed.

Impact:

  • The intended recipient does not receive the NFT, breaking expected functionality and user trust.

Users can be denied gifts or benefits they were supposed to receive, potentially causing confusion or disputes.

Proof of Concept

  • user2 calls buyPresent, passing the user address as presentReceiver.

  • After the transaction, it is observed that the NFT is minted to the caller instead of the specified presentReceiver, demonstrating the incorrect recipient assignment.

function testNFT() 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();
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(user), 1e18);
vm.stopPrank();
vm.startPrank(user2);
santasList.buyPresent(user);
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(user), 0);
// Check that user2 received the NFT
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(user2), 1);
vm.stopPrank();
}

Recommended Mitigation

Update the minting logic so that the NFT is minted directly to presentReceiver rather than msg.sender, ensuring that the intended recipient receives the NFT and restoring the expected gift behavior. This mitigation also corrects the griefing issue, and enforces the intended token payment amount by explicitly burning the required 2e18 tokens from the caller.

- function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
- i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
- _mintAndIncrement();
- }
+ function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
+ i_santaToken.burn(msg.sender, 2e18);
+ _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!