Santa's List

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

buyPresent() always mints the NFT to msg.sender instead of presentReceiver, so the intended recipient never receives the gift

Root + Impact

Description

  • buyPresent is designed so that a caller spends SantaTokens to purchase and deliver a present NFT to a chosen recipient (presentReceiver).

  • _mintAndIncrement hard-codes the mint destination as msg.sender; the presentReceiver parameter is only passed to burn, so every present NFT is delivered to the buyer while the intended recipient receives nothing.

function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
// @> _mintAndIncrement calls _safeMint(msg.sender, ...) — presentReceiver is ignored for minting
_mintAndIncrement();
}
function _mintAndIncrement() private {
// @> always mints to msg.sender regardless of who the intended recipient is
_safeMint(msg.sender, s_tokenCounter++);
}

Risk

Likelihood:

  • Every call to buyPresent with a non-zero presentReceiver that differs from msg.sender results in misdelivery; the function provides no alternative code path to mint to the correct address.

Impact:

  • Any caller using buyPresent to gift a present to another person will find the NFT deposited in their own wallet; the recipient address is completely disregarded, making the gifting feature non-functional and permanently misdirecting presents.

Proof of Concept

Alice holds a SantaToken and calls buyPresent(bob) intending to gift Bob a present. After the call, Alice holds the NFT and Bob receives nothing.

function test_buyPresentMintsToCallerNotReceiver() public {
address alice = makeAddr("alice");
address bob = makeAddr("bob");
// Fund Alice with a SantaToken so the burn does not revert
vm.prank(address(santasList));
santaToken.mint(alice);
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(alice), 1e18);
vm.prank(alice);
santasList.buyPresent(bob); // alice intends to gift bob
// NFT ended up with Alice, not Bob
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(alice), 1, "Alice should NOT have the NFT");
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(bob), 0, "Bob should have received the NFT");
}

The assertion confirms the NFT is in Alice's wallet even though Bob was named as the recipient.

Recommended Mitigation

Add a dedicated private helper that accepts a recipient argument, or pass presentReceiver directly to _safeMint, so the NFT goes to the intended address.

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