Santa's List

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

`buyPresent` burns tokens from `presentReceiver`, mints NFT to `msg.sender`

[H-2] buyPresent burns tokens from presentReceiver, mints NFT to msg.sender

Description

  • buyPresent is supposed to let someone spend their own SantaTokens to gift an NFT to another address. Instead, it burns tokens from presentReceiver (the recipient) while minting the NFT to msg.sender (the caller). The victim's balance is drained and the attacker receives the NFT.

function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver); // @audit burns receiver's tokens, not caller's
_mintAndIncrement(); // @audit mints to msg.sender, not presentReceiver
}

and inside SantaToken.sol:

function burn(address from) external {
if (msg.sender != i_santasList) {
revert SantaToken__NotSantasList();
}
_burn(from, 1e18); // burns from whoever is passed in
}

Risk

Likelihood:

  • any caller can pass a victim's address as presentReceiver and drain their tokens.

Impact:

  • Impact 1: Complete theft of any SantaToken holder's balance.

  • Impact 2: Attacker receives an NFT they didn't pay for.

  • Impact 3: The intended gift mechanic is entirely broken.

Proof of Concept

Test case to see that buying present drains the presentReceiver rather than msg.sender and mints NFT to msg.sender rather than presentReceiver:

function test_buyPresentDrainsReceiver() public {
// Santa gives victim EXTRA_NICE status and they collect a SantaToken
vm.startPrank(santa);
santasList.checkList(victim, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE);
santasList.checkTwice(victim, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE);
vm.stopPrank();
vm.warp(CHRISTMAS_2023_BLOCK_TIME + 1);
vm.prank(victim);
santasList.collectPresent(); // victim now has 1e18 SantaToken
address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
vm.prank(attacker);
// attacker passes victim as presentReceiver — drains victim, mints to attacker
santasList.buyPresent(victim);
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(victim), 0);
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(attacker), 1);
}

Recommended Mitigation

Burn from msg.sender (requires prior approval), mint to presentReceiver.

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

Note: SantaToken.sol also needs to burn from the approved spender pattern, or the SantasList contract must use transferFrom before burning. The simplest fix is making the caller approve SantasList to spend their tokens, and using transferFrom + burn internally.

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!