Beatland Festival

AI First Flight #4
Beginner FriendlyFoundrySolidityNFT
EXP
View results
Submission Details
Severity: medium
Valid

buyPass function not following CEI pattern leads to unlimited minting of passes due to stale value of passSupply state

Root + Impact

Root Cause

The buyPass function updates passSupply after calling _mint, which internally triggers an external call to the recipient via onERC1155Received if the recipient is a contract.

// @> External call happens here before state update
_mint(msg.sender, collectionId, 1, "");
// @> State update happens AFTER external interaction
++passSupply[collectionId];

In OpenZeppelin’s ERC1155 implementation, _mint performs:

  • _doSafeTransferAcceptanceCheck → calls onERC1155Received on the recipient

This allows a malicious contract to reenter buyPass before passSupply is incremented, bypassing supply checks using stale state.

Source:


Impact

  • Bypass of max supply constraint
    Attacker can mint more passes than passMaxSupply

  • Unlimited or excess minting
    Reentrancy allows repeated execution before supply is updated

  • Protocol integrity compromised
    Supply accounting becomes inconsistent and exploitable


Description

  • Under normal behavior, state changes (like incrementing supply) should occur before any external calls to prevent reentrancy vulnerabilities.

  • In the current implementation, _mint triggers an external call before passSupply is updated. A malicious contract can exploit this by reentering buyPass during onERC1155Received, causing multiple mints while the supply check still sees the old value.


Risk

Likelihood:

  • Occurs when a contract (instead of an EOA) calls buyPass

  • Triggered when recipient implements onERC1155Received with reentrant logic


Impact:

  • Minting more passes than allowed by passMaxSupply

  • Economic and supply constraint violations


Proof of Concept

contract Attacker {
FestivalPass target;
uint256 passId;
function attack() external payable {
target.buyPass{value: msg.value}(passId);
}
function onERC1155Received(
address,
address,
uint256,
uint256,
bytes calldata
) external returns (bytes4) {
// Reenter before passSupply is updated
target.buyPass{value: msg.value}(passId);
return this.onERC1155Received.selector;
}
}

Recommended Mitigation

Follow Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern, update the state passSupply before calling the _mint function.

require(passSupply[collectionId] < passMaxSupply[collectionId], "Max supply reached");
- _mint(msg.sender, collectionId, 1, "");
++passSupply[collectionId];
+ _mint(msg.sender, collectionId, 1, "");
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

ai-first-flight-judge Lead Judge about 3 hours ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

[M-02] Function `FestivalPass:buyPass` Lacks Defense Against Reentrancy Attacks, Leading to Exceeding the Maximum NFT Pass Supply

# Function `FestivalPass:buyPass` Lacks Defense Against Reentrancy Attacks, Leading to Exceeding the Maximum NFT Pass Supply ## Description * Under normal circumstances, the system should control the supply of tokens or resources to ensure that it does not exceed a predefined maximum limit. This helps maintain system stability, security, and predictable behavior. * The function `FestivalPass:buyPass` does not follow the **Checks-Effects-Interactions** pattern. If a user uses a malicious contract as their account and includes reentrancy logic, they can bypass the maximum supply limit. ```solidity function buyPass(uint256 collectionId) external payable { // Must be valid pass ID (1 or 2 or 3) require(collectionId == GENERAL_PASS || collectionId == VIP_PASS || collectionId == BACKSTAGE_PASS, "Invalid pass ID"); // Check payment and supply require(msg.value == passPrice[collectionId], "Incorrect payment amount"); require(passSupply[collectionId] < passMaxSupply[collectionId], "Max supply reached"); // Mint 1 pass to buyer @> _mint(msg.sender, collectionId, 1, ""); // question: potential reentrancy? ++passSupply[collectionId]; // VIP gets 5 BEAT welcome bonus, BACKSTAGE gets 15 BEAT welcome bonus uint256 bonus = (collectionId == VIP_PASS) ? 5e18 : (collectionId == BACKSTAGE_PASS) ? 15e18 : 0; if (bonus > 0) { // Mint BEAT tokens to buyer BeatToken(beatToken).mint(msg.sender, bonus); } emit PassPurchased(msg.sender, collectionId); } ``` ## Risk **Likelihood**: * If a user uses a contract wallet with reentrancy logic, they can trigger multiple malicious calls during the execution of the `_mint` function. **Impact**: * Although the attacker still pays for each purchase, the total number of minted NFTs will exceed the intended maximum supply. This can lead to supply inflation and user dissatisfaction. ## Proof of Concept ````Solidity //SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT pragma solidity 0.8.25; import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC1155/IERC1155Receiver.sol"; import "../src/FestivalPass.sol"; import "./FestivalPass.t.sol"; import {console} from "forge-std/Test.sol"; contract AttackBuyPass{ address immutable onlyOnwer; FestivalPassTest immutable festivalPassTest; FestivalPass immutable festivalPass; uint256 immutable collectionId; uint256 immutable configPassPrice; uint256 immutable configPassMaxSupply; uint256 hackMintCount = 0; constructor(FestivalPassTest _festivalPassTest, FestivalPass _festivalPass, uint256 _collectionId, uint256 _configPassPrice, uint256 _configPassMaxSupply) payable { onlyOnwer = msg.sender; festivalPassTest = _festivalPassTest; festivalPass = _festivalPass; collectionId = _collectionId; configPassPrice = _configPassPrice; configPassMaxSupply = _configPassMaxSupply; hackMintCount = 1; } receive() external payable {} fallback() external payable {} function DoAttackBuyPass() public { require(msg.sender == onlyOnwer, "AttackBuyPass: msg.sender != onlyOnwer"); // This attack can only bypass the "maximum supply" restriction. festivalPass.buyPass{value: configPassPrice}(collectionId); } function onERC1155Received( address operator, address from, uint256 id, uint256 value, bytes calldata data ) external returns (bytes4){ if (hackMintCount festivalPass.passMaxSupply(targetPassId)); } } ``` ```` ## Recommended Mitigation * Refactor the function `FestivalPass:buyPass` to follow the **Checks-Effects-Interactions** principle. ```diff function buyPass(uint256 collectionId) external payable { // Must be valid pass ID (1 or 2 or 3) require(collectionId == GENERAL_PASS || collectionId == VIP_PASS || collectionId == BACKSTAGE_PASS, "Invalid pass ID"); // Check payment and supply require(msg.value == passPrice[collectionId], "Incorrect payment amount"); require(passSupply[collectionId] < passMaxSupply[collectionId], "Max supply reached"); // Mint 1 pass to buyer - _mint(msg.sender, collectionId, 1, ""); ++passSupply[collectionId]; + emit PassPurchased(msg.sender, collectionId); + _mint(msg.sender, collectionId, 1, ""); // VIP gets 5 BEAT welcome bonus, BACKSTAGE gets 15 BEAT welcome bonus uint256 bonus = (collectionId == VIP_PASS) ? 5e18 : (collectionId == BACKSTAGE_PASS) ? 15e18 : 0; if (bonus > 0) { // Mint BEAT tokens to buyer BeatToken(beatToken).mint(msg.sender, bonus); } - emit PassPurchased(msg.sender, collectionId); } ```

Support

FAQs

Can't find an answer? Chat with us on Discord, Twitter or Linkedin.

Give us feedback!