Description
buyPresent is designed to let a caller spend their SantaTokens to purchase an NFT for a specified recipient
(presentReceiver). The NatSpec states: "You'll first need to approve the SantasList contract to spend your SantaTokens."
The implementation inverts both operations: it burns tokens from presentReceiver (not the caller) using Solmate's
_burn which has no allowance check, and mints the NFT to msg.sender (not presentReceiver). Any caller with zero tokens
can drain a victim's SantaToken balance and receive the NFT themselves at no personal cost.
function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
// @> Burns 1e18 tokens FROM presentReceiver — no approval required from them
i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
// @> Mints the NFT to msg.sender, not to presentReceiver
_mintAndIncrement();
}
function _mintAndIncrement() private {
// @> Always mints to msg.sender regardless of who was passed as presentReceiver
_safeMint(msg.sender, s_tokenCounter++);
}
// SantaToken.sol — no allowance check, directly reduces balance of from
function burn(address from) external {
if (msg.sender != i_santasList) revert SantaToken__NotSantasList();
// @> Solmate _burn reduces balanceOf[from] directly, no allowance gate
_burn(from, 1e18);
}
Risk
Likelihood:
Any EXTRA_NICE user who calls collectPresent immediately becomes a target — their 1e18 SantaTokens are drainable the
moment the mint transaction is confirmed
No approval, signature, or capital is required from the attacker — a single transaction with gas cost is sufficient
Impact:
Every SantaToken holder loses their tokens to any attacker who calls buyPresent(victim), with no recourse
The attacker receives a free NFT for each victim drained, compounding the protocol's NFT supply inflation
Proof of Concept
function testBuyPresentStealsVictimsTokens() public {
// Setup: give victim SantaTokens via EXTRA_NICE flow
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.prank(user);
santasList.collectPresent();
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(user), 1e18);
// Attacker has zero tokens but drains victim
address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(attacker), 0);
vm.prank(attacker);
santasList.buyPresent(user); // burns user's tokens, mints to attacker
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(user), 0); // victim drained
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(attacker), 1); // attacker got NFT
}
Recommended Mitigation
Burn from the caller and mint to the intended recipient:
function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
_mintAndIncrement();
i_santaToken.burn(msg.sender);
_safeMint(presentReceiver, s_tokenCounter++);
}
## 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.