Three sources say the present should go to the named receiver: the NatSpec of buyPresent ("Buy a present for someone else"), its parameter name presentReceiver, and the README, which says SantaToken "can be used to buy the NFT for their NAUGHTY or UNKNOWN friends".
buyPresent reuses _mintAndIncrement, which hardcodes _safeMint(msg.sender, ...). presentReceiver is used only as the burn source and never as the mint recipient, so the purchased NFT always lands on the caller. This needs a different line and a different fix from the burn-source defect: burning from msg.sender instead would still leave the friend without the present.
Likelihood:
The misdelivery occurs on every buyPresent call where presentReceiver is not the caller. A fuzz test over 256 random buyer and receiver pairs confirms it.
It shows up only when the named receiver holds at least 1e18 SantaToken. In the README's main case, a token-less NAUGHTY friend, the call reverts earlier on the receiver's burn, which is the separate burn-source defect. That is why likelihood is Medium rather than High.
Impact:
The named receiver never gets the present. The buyer receives it and must spend an extra transferFrom to complete the gift. Because the NFT can be forwarded, no NFT or funds are lost.
A NICE buyer who buys a gift before collecting their own present is blocked from collectPresent with AlreadyCollected until they forward the purchased NFT. They can undo this themselves.
test_SL07_GiftIsMintedToBuyerNotReceiver: carol (EXTRA_NICE) collects, funds dave (NAUGHTY) with 1e18 so the receiver-sourced burn clears, and calls buyPresent(dave). Token #1 is minted to carol, dave's NFT balance is 0 and his SantaToken is spent. A manual transferFrom then completes the gift.
testFuzz_SL07_ReceiverNeverGetsTheNft: for any EOA buyer and any distinct receiver holding 1e18, ownerOf(0) == buyer and the receiver's NFT balance is unchanged (256 runs).
test_SL07_TokenlessFriendGiftReverts: a gift to a token-less friend reverts with an arithmetic underflow before any mint. This belongs to the burn-source defect and is shown here only to bound this finding.
test_SL07_BuyBeforeCollectLocksBuyerOut: frank (NICE, not yet collected) buys a gift. His collectPresent reverts with AlreadyCollected until he forwards the gift, after which he collects.
File test/PoC_SL-07.t.sol:
Run from the repository root:
Result:
Mint to the named receiver. The burn source is a separate defect with its own fix, which is to burn from msg.sender.
## 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.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
Submissions are being reviewed by our AI judge. Results will be available in a few minutes.
View all submissionsThe contest is complete and the rewards are being distributed.