ton-vulnerability-scanner
Scans TON (The Open Network) smart contracts for 3 critical vulnerabilities including integer-as-boolean misuse, fake Jetton contracts, and forward TON without gas checks. Use when auditing FunC contracts.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/tree/main/plugins/building-secure-contracts/skills/ton-vulnerability-scanner
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install trailofbits-skills@llmmart
git clone https://github.com/trailofbits/skills.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole trailofbits/skills collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
TON Vulnerability Scanner
1. Purpose
Systematically scan TON blockchain smart contracts written in FunC for platform-specific security vulnerabilities related to boolean logic, Jetton token handling, and gas management. This skill encodes 3 critical vulnerability patterns unique to TON's architecture.
2. When to Use This Skill
- Auditing TON smart contracts (FunC language)
- Reviewing Jetton token implementations
- Validating token transfer notification handlers
- Pre-launch security assessment of TON dApps
- Reviewing gas forwarding logic
- Assessing boolean condition handling
3. Platform Detection
File Extensions & Indicators
- FunC files:
.fc,.func
Language/Framework Markers
;; FunC contract indicators
#include "imports/stdlib.fc";
() recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure {
;; Contract logic
}
() recv_external(slice in_msg) impure {
;; External message handler
}
;; Common patterns
send_raw_message()
load_uint(), load_msg_addr(), load_coins()
begin_cell(), end_cell(), store_*()
transfer_notification operation
op::transfer, op::transfer_notification
.store_uint().store_slice().store_coins()
Project Structure
contracts/*.fc- FunC contract sourcewrappers/*.ts- TypeScript wrapperstests/*.spec.ts- Contract testston.config.tsorwasm.config.ts- TON project config
Tool Support
- TON Blueprint: Development framework for TON
- toncli: CLI tool for TON contracts
- ton-compiler: FunC compiler
- Manual review primarily (limited automated tools)
4. How This Skill Works
When invoked, I will:
- Search your codebase for FunC/Tact contracts
- Analyze each contract for the 3 vulnerability patterns
- Report findings with file references and severity, above them a coverage table carrying a verdict for every pattern
- Provide fixes for each identified issue
- Emit the coverage table — all 3 patterns, each with a verdict
5. Example Output
When vulnerabilities are found, you'll get a report like this:
=== TON VULNERABILITY SCAN RESULTS ===
Project: my-ton-contract
Files Scanned: 3 (.fc, .tact)
Vulnerabilities Found: 2
Coverage: 3/3 patterns reported
1 Integer as Boolean .............. found contracts/wallet.fc:45
2 Fake Jetton Contract ............ found contracts/staking.fc:85
3 Forward TON Without Gas Check ... clear forward amounts fixed at 0.05 TON
---
[CRITICAL] Fake Jetton Contract - Missing Sender Validation
File: contracts/staking.fc:85
Pattern: transfer_notification sender not checked against the stored Jetton wallet
6. Vulnerability Patterns (3 Patterns)
I check for 3 critical vulnerability patterns unique to TON. For detailed detection patterns, code examples, mitigations, and testing strategies, see VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md.
Pattern Summary:
- Integer as Boolean ⚠️ HIGH - Positive integers used as true; FunC's true is -1
- Fake Jetton Contract ⚠️ CRITICAL -
transfer_notificationsender not validated - Forward TON Without Gas Check ⚠️ HIGH - Forwarding without reserving gas for the rest of execution
For complete vulnerability patterns with code examples, see VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md.
7. Scanning Workflow
Step 1: Platform Identification
- Verify FunC language (
.fcor.funcfiles) - Check for TON Blueprint or toncli project structure
- Locate contract source files
- Identify Jetton-related contracts
Step 2: Boolean Logic Review
# Find boolean-like variables
rg "int.*is_|int.*has_|int.*flag|int.*enabled" contracts/
# Check for positive integers used as booleans
rg "= 1;|return 1;" contracts/ | grep -E "is_|has_|flag|enabled|valid"
# Look for NOT operations on boolean-like values
rg "~.*\(|~ " contracts/
For each boolean:
- Uses -1 for true, 0 for false
- NOT using 1 or other positive integers
- Logic operations work correctly
Step 3: Jetton Handler Analysis
# Find transfer_notification handlers
rg "transfer_notification|op::transfer_notification" contracts/
For each Jetton handler:
- Validates sender address
- Sender checked against stored Jetton wallet address
- Cannot trust forward_payload without sender validation
- Has admin function to set Jetton wallet address
Step 4: Gas/Forward Amount Review
# Find forward amount usage
rg "forward_ton_amount|forward_amount" contracts/
rg "load_coins\(\)" contracts/
# Find send_raw_message calls
rg "send_raw_message" contracts/
For each outgoing message:
- Forward amounts are fixed/bounded
- OR user-provided amounts validated against msg_value
- Cannot drain contract balance
- Appropriate send_raw_message flags used
Step 5: Manual Review
TON contracts require thorough manual review:
- Boolean logic with
~,&,|operators - Message parsing and validation
- Gas economics and fee calculations
- Storage operations and data serialization
8. Reporting Format
Coverage Table
Report on every pattern in §6, whether or not it turned anything up. Emit this table above the findings, with all 3 rows present:
| # | Pattern | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Integer as Boolean | clear |
searched is_/has_/flag; all set to -1 |
| 2 | Fake Jetton Contract | ||
| 3 | Forward TON Without Gas Check |
Each verdict is one of:
found— citefile:lineand write the finding up in full below.clear— the pattern applies to this contract and the contract handles it. Name the function, stored address, or check you searched for, so a reader can repeat the search.n/a— the pattern cannot apply here. Give the reason in one clause ("this contract handles no Jetton transfer notifications"). Not having looked is notn/a.
Three patterns is a short list, which makes an incomplete table harder to excuse rather than easier: a report
covering one pattern and silent on the other two reads exactly like a clean contract. Emit all three rows even
when all three are clear. A row whose Verdict cell is empty is incomplete in the same way: row 1 above is filled in to show the shape, and every row is filled in the same way before the report is done.
Finding Template
## [CRITICAL] Fake Jetton Contract - Missing Sender Validation
**Location**: `contracts/staking.fc:85-95` (recv_internal, transfer_notification handler)
**Description**:
The `transfer_notification` operation handler does not validate that the sender is the expected Jetton wallet contract. Any attacker can send a fake `transfer_notification` message claiming to have transferred tokens, crediting themselves without actually depositing any Jettons.
**Vulnerable Code**:
```func
// staking.fc, line 85
if (op == op::transfer_notification) {
int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins();
slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr();
;; WRONG: No validation of sender_address!
;; Attacker can claim any jetton_amount
credit_user(from_user, jetton_amount);
}
```
**Attack Scenario**:
1. Attacker deploys malicious contract
2. Malicious contract sends `transfer_notification` message to staking contract
3. Message claims attacker transferred 1,000,000 Jettons
4. Staking contract credits attacker without checking sender
5. Attacker can now withdraw from contract or gain benefits without depositing
**Proof of Concept**:
```typescript
// Attacker sends fake transfer_notification
const attackerContract = await blockchain.treasury("attacker");
await stakingContract.sendInternalMessage(attackerContract.getSender(), {
op: OP_CODES.TRANSFER_NOTIFICATION,
jettonAmount: toNano("1000000"), // Fake amount
fromUser: attackerContract.address,
});
// Attacker successfully credited without sending real Jettons
const balance = await stakingContract.getUserBalance(attackerContract.address);
expect(balance).toEqual(toNano("1000000")); // Attack succeeded
```
**Recommendation**:
Store expected Jetton wallet address and validate sender:
```func
global slice jetton_wallet_address;
() recv_internal(...) impure {
load_data(); ;; Load jetton_wallet_address from storage
slice cs = in_msg_full.begin_parse();
int flags = cs~load_uint(4);
slice sender_address = cs~load_msg_addr();
int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32);
if (op == op::transfer_notification) {
;; CRITICAL: Validate sender
throw_unless(error::wrong_jetton_wallet,
equal_slices(sender_address, jetton_wallet_address));
int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins();
slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr();
;; Safe to credit user
credit_user(from_user, jetton_amount);
}
}
```
**References**:
- building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/ton/fake_jetton_contract
9. Priority Guidelines
Critical (Immediate Fix Required)
- Fake Jetton contract (unauthorized minting/crediting)
High (Fix Before Launch)
- Integer as boolean (logic errors, broken conditions)
- Forward TON without gas check (balance drainage)
10. Testing Recommendations
Unit Tests
import { Blockchain } from "@ton/sandbox";
import { toNano } from "ton-core";
describe("Security tests", () => {
let blockchain: Blockchain;
let contract: Contract;
beforeEach(async () => {
blockchain = await Blockchain.create();
contract = blockchain.openContract(await Contract.fromInit());
});
it("should use correct boolean values", async () => {
// Test that TRUE = -1, FALSE = 0
const result = await contract.getFlag();
expect(result).toEqual(-1n); // True
expect(result).not.toEqual(1n); // Not 1!
});
it("should reject fake jetton transfer", async () => {
const attacker = await blockchain.treasury("attacker");
const result = await contract.send(
attacker.getSender(),
{ value: toNano("0.05") },
{
$$type: "TransferNotification",
query_id: 0n,
amount: toNano("1000"),
from: attacker.address,
}
);
expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({
success: false, // Should reject
});
});
it("should validate gas for forward amount", async () => {
const result = await contract.send(
user.getSender(),
{ value: toNano("0.01") }, // Insufficient gas
{
$$type: "Transfer",
to: recipient.address,
forward_ton_amount: toNano("1"), // Trying to forward 1 TON
}
);
expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({
success: false,
});
});
});
Integration Tests
// Test with real Jetton wallet
it("should accept transfer from real jetton wallet", async () => {
// Deploy actual Jetton minter and wallet
const jettonMinter = await blockchain.openContract(JettonMinter.create());
const userJettonWallet = await jettonMinter.getWalletAddress(user.address);
// Set jetton wallet in contract
await contract.setJettonWallet(userJettonWallet);
// Real transfer from Jetton wallet
const result = await userJettonWallet.sendTransfer(
user.getSender(),
contract.address,
toNano("100"),
{}
);
expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({
to: contract.address,
success: true,
});
});
11. Additional Resources
- Building Secure Contracts:
building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/ton/ - TON Documentation: https://docs.ton.org/
- FunC Documentation: https://docs.ton.org/develop/func/overview
- TON Blueprint: https://github.com/ton-org/blueprint
- Jetton Standard: https://github.com/ton-blockchain/TEPs/blob/master/text/0074-jettons-standard.md
12. Quick Reference Checklist
Before completing TON contract audit:
Boolean Logic (HIGH):
- All boolean values use -1 (true) and 0 (false)
- NO positive integers (1, 2, etc.) used as booleans
- Functions returning booleans return -1 for true
- Boolean logic with
~,&,|uses correct values - Tests verify boolean operations work correctly
Jetton Security (CRITICAL):
-
transfer_notificationhandler validates sender address - Sender checked against stored Jetton wallet address
- Jetton wallet address stored during initialization
- Admin function to set/update Jetton wallet
- Cannot trust forward_payload without sender validation
- Tests with fake Jetton contracts verify rejection
Gas & Forward Amounts (HIGH):
- Forward TON amounts are fixed/bounded
- OR user-provided amounts validated:
msg_value >= tx_fee + forward_amount - Contract balance protected from drainage
- Appropriate
send_raw_messageflags used - Tests verify cannot drain contract with excessive forward amounts
Testing:
- Unit tests for all three vulnerability types
- Integration tests with real Jetton contracts
- Gas cost analysis for all operations
- Testnet deployment before mainnet
- Coverage table emitted with all 3 rows, each carrying a verdict of
found,clearorn/awith a reason
13. Rationalizations to Reject
- "The contract is small, so most patterns obviously don't apply." Obvious to whom? An
n/acosts one clause and makes the judgment reviewable. Silence records nothing, and a reader cannot tell it apart from not having checked. With only three patterns, there is no version of this scan too large to complete. - "There is no automated tooling for FunC, so coverage can't be systematic." The absence of a scanner is the reason the table matters, not an excuse for skipping it. Manual review is the method here; the table is what makes it auditable.
- "I checked the patterns that matter for this contract." Deciding which patterns matter is the scan, not a precondition for starting it. Rank by severity after the table is complete, not by leaving rows out.
- "No findings, so there is nothing to report." A zero-finding scan still emits the full coverage table. That table is the deliverable: it is what distinguishes a contract that was examined from one that was glanced at.
- "The sender is obviously the Jetton wallet." Then cite the stored address it is compared against. Any contract can send a transfer notification; the check is a comparison against an address the contract itself computed, and its absence is the fake-Jetton bug.
- "The message is non-bounceable, so gas doesn't matter." Name the reserve. Forwarding without leaving enough for the remaining execution strands the contract mid-operation regardless of bounce behavior.
Files (skills)
-
agents
-
openai.yaml 248 B
interface: display_name: "TON Vulnerability Scanner" short_description: "Find security vulnerabilities in TON smart contracts" icon_small: "assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg" icon_large: "assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg" brand_color: "#D83A34"
-
-
assets
-
trail-of-bits-mark.svg 3 KB · in bundle
-
-
resources
-
VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md 18.1 KB
## 6. Vulnerability Checklist (3 Patterns) ### 6.1 INTEGER AS BOOLEAN ⚠️ HIGH **Description**: FunC uses integers for boolean values (0 = false, -1 = true). The bitwise NOT operator `~` on non-standard boolean values (positive integers) produces unexpected results, causing logic errors. **Background**: - FunC `true` = -1 (all bits set: `0xFFFFFFFF...`) - FunC `false` = 0 (all bits clear: `0x00000000...`) - `~` is bitwise NOT: `~0 = -1`, `~(-1) = 0` - But `~1 = -2` (not 0!), `~2 = -3` (not 0!) **Detection Patterns**: ```func ;; VULNERABLE: Using positive integers as booleans int is_active = 1; ;; WRONG: Should be -1 for true, 0 for false if (is_active) { ;; This works - 1 is truthy } if (~ is_active) { ;; PROBLEM: ~1 = -2, which is still truthy! ;; This branch will ALWAYS execute, not just when is_active is false } ;; VULNERABLE: Returning positive integers as booleans int is_valid(int value) { if (value > 100) { return 1; ;; WRONG: Should return -1 } return 0; ;; Correct for false } int valid = is_valid(150); ;; Returns 1 if (~ valid) { ;; PROBLEM: ~1 = -2 (truthy), this executes when it shouldn't! } ;; VULNERABLE: Boolean arithmetic int flag1 = 1; ;; Wrong true value int flag2 = 1; ;; Wrong true value int both_true = flag1 & flag2; ;; 1 & 1 = 1 (works) int neither_true = (~ flag1) & (~ flag2); ;; ~1 & ~1 = -2 & -2 = -2 (WRONG!) ;; Expected 0 (false), got -2 (truthy) ``` **What to Check**: - [ ] All boolean values use 0 (false) or -1 (true) - [ ] NO positive integers (1, 2, etc.) used as booleans - [ ] Functions returning booleans return -1 (not 1) for true - [ ] Boolean logic with `~`, `&`, `|` uses correct values - [ ] Conditions test against 0 explicitly where needed **Mitigation**: ```func ;; SECURE: Use correct boolean values const int TRUE = -1; ;; All bits set const int FALSE = 0; ;; All bits clear int is_active = TRUE; ;; Correct if (is_active) { ;; Works correctly } if (~ is_active) { ;; Works correctly: ~(-1) = 0 (falsy) } ;; SECURE: Return correct boolean values int is_valid(int value) method_id { if (value > 100) { return TRUE; ;; -1 for true } return FALSE; ;; 0 for false } int valid = is_valid(150); if (~ valid) { ;; Correct: ~(-1) = 0 (falsy), this doesn't execute } ;; SECURE: Boolean operations with correct values int flag1 = TRUE; ;; -1 int flag2 = TRUE; ;; -1 int both_true = flag1 & flag2; ;; -1 & -1 = -1 (TRUE) int neither_true = (~ flag1) & (~ flag2); ;; 0 & 0 = 0 (FALSE) ;; SECURE: Explicit comparisons when needed int status_code = get_status(); ;; Returns 0, 1, 2, etc. ;; Instead of treating as boolean: if (status_code) { } ;; Ambiguous! ;; Explicitly compare: if (status_code != 0) { } ;; Clear intent if (status_code == 1) { } ;; Even better ``` **Common Mistake Patterns**: ```func ;; MISTAKE 1: Loading boolean from storage/message slice cs = get_data().begin_parse(); int flag = cs~load_uint(1); ;; Returns 0 or 1, not 0 or -1! ;; FIX: Convert to proper boolean int flag_bool = flag ? TRUE : FALSE; ;; MISTAKE 2: Comparing with 1 instead of TRUE int is_owner = sender == owner_address; ;; Returns 0 or -1 (correct) if (is_owner == 1) { ;; WRONG: will never match ;; This never executes! } ;; FIX: Compare with TRUE or just use directly if (is_owner == TRUE) { } ;; Correct if (is_owner) { } ;; Also correct ;; MISTAKE 3: Returning count as boolean int count_items() { return items.length; ;; Returns 0, 1, 2, 3... (not boolean!) } int has_items = count_items(); if (~ has_items) { ;; WRONG: ~1 = -2 (truthy), ~2 = -3 (truthy), etc. } ;; FIX: Return proper boolean or use explicit comparison int has_items() { return items.length > 0 ? TRUE : FALSE; } ;; OR int count = count_items(); if (count == 0) { } ;; Explicit comparison ``` **Testing**: ```func ;; Test boolean logic int test_boolean_logic() { int t = TRUE; int f = FALSE; ;; Basic logic throw_unless(100, t == -1); throw_unless(101, f == 0); ;; Negation throw_unless(102, ~t == f); throw_unless(103, ~f == t); ;; AND logic throw_unless(104, t & t == t); throw_unless(105, t & f == f); throw_unless(106, f & f == f); ;; OR logic throw_unless(107, t | t == t); throw_unless(108, t | f == t); throw_unless(109, f | f == f); return TRUE; } ``` **References**: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/ton/integer_as_boolean --- ### 4.2 FAKE JETTON CONTRACT ⚠️ CRITICAL **Description**: The `transfer_notification` operation can be sent by any contract. Without sender validation, attackers can send fake transfer notifications claiming to have transferred tokens that were never sent. **Background**: - Jetton (TON's token standard) uses `transfer_notification` to notify recipients - Real flow: User → Jetton Wallet → Receiver (with notification) - Attack: Attacker → Receiver (fake notification, no Jetton Wallet involved) **Detection Patterns**: ```func ;; VULNERABLE: No sender validation in transfer_notification () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { slice cs = in_msg_full.begin_parse(); int flags = cs~load_uint(4); slice sender_address = cs~load_msg_addr(); int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::transfer_notification) { ;; WRONG: No validation of sender_address! int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); slice forward_payload = in_msg_body; ;; Process as if jettons were received ;; Attacker can claim any jetton_amount without actually sending tokens! credit_user(from_user, jetton_amount); } } ;; VULNERABLE: Validating user address but not Jetton wallet if (op == op::transfer_notification) { int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); ;; Validates from_user but not sender! throw_unless(error::unauthorized, equal_slices(from_user, authorized_user)); ;; WRONG: Anyone can send this message claiming to be from authorized_user credit_user(from_user, jetton_amount); } ;; VULNERABLE: Trusting forward_payload data if (op == op::transfer_notification) { int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); slice forward_payload = in_msg_body; ;; Parse data from forward_payload int token_id = forward_payload~load_uint(32); ;; WRONG: Attacker controls all this data! ;; Can claim any token_id, any jetton_amount } ``` **What to Check**: - [ ] `transfer_notification` handler validates sender address - [ ] Sender must be expected Jetton wallet address - [ ] Jetton wallet addresses stored during initialization - [ ] Cannot trust forward_payload without sender validation - [ ] User address in notification is NOT sufficient validation **Mitigation**: ```func ;; SECURE: Store expected Jetton wallet address at initialization global slice jetton_wallet_address; () load_data() impure { slice ds = get_data().begin_parse(); jetton_wallet_address = ds~load_msg_addr(); ;; Load other data } () save_data() impure { set_data(begin_cell() .store_slice(jetton_wallet_address) ;; Store other data .end_cell()); } ;; Initialize with Jetton wallet address () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { load_data(); slice cs = in_msg_full.begin_parse(); int flags = cs~load_uint(4); slice sender_address = cs~load_msg_addr(); int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::transfer_notification) { ;; CRITICAL: Validate sender is expected Jetton wallet throw_unless(error::wrong_jetton_wallet, equal_slices(sender_address, jetton_wallet_address)); ;; Now safe to trust the notification int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); slice forward_payload = in_msg_body; ;; Can safely credit user credit_user(from_user, jetton_amount); ;; Can safely parse forward_payload if (~ forward_payload.slice_empty?()) { int token_id = forward_payload~load_uint(32); ;; Use token_id } } } ;; SECURE: Multiple Jetton support with dictionary global cell jetton_wallets; ;; Dictionary: jetton_type -> wallet_address () load_data() impure { slice ds = get_data().begin_parse(); jetton_wallets = ds~load_dict(); } () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { load_data(); slice cs = in_msg_full.begin_parse(); int flags = cs~load_uint(4); slice sender_address = cs~load_msg_addr(); int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::transfer_notification) { int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); slice forward_payload = in_msg_body; ;; Parse jetton type from forward_payload int jetton_type = forward_payload~load_uint(8); ;; Look up expected wallet address for this jetton type (slice expected_wallet, int found) = jetton_wallets.udict_get?(256, jetton_type); ;; Validate sender matches expected wallet throw_unless(error::unauthorized_jetton, found & equal_slices(sender_address, expected_wallet)); ;; Safe to process credit_user_jetton(from_user, jetton_type, jetton_amount); } } ``` **Admin Function to Set Jetton Wallet**: ```func ;; Only owner can set/update Jetton wallet address if (op == op::set_jetton_wallet) { throw_unless(error::unauthorized, equal_slices(sender_address, owner_address)); slice new_jetton_wallet = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); jetton_wallet_address = new_jetton_wallet; save_data(); return (); } ``` **Testing**: ```typescript // Test fake transfer notification is rejected it("should reject fake transfer notification", async () => { const attacker = await blockchain.treasury("attacker"); // Attacker sends fake transfer_notification directly const result = await contract.sendInternalMessage(attacker.getSender(), { op: OP_CODES.TRANSFER_NOTIFICATION, jettonAmount: toNano("1000"), fromUser: user.address, }); expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({ from: attacker.address, to: contract.address, success: false, // Should be rejected exitCode: ERROR_CODES.WRONG_JETTON_WALLET, }); }); // Test real Jetton wallet notification is accepted it("should accept real jetton transfer", async () => { // Send from actual Jetton wallet const result = await contract.sendInternalMessage(jettonWallet.address, { op: OP_CODES.TRANSFER_NOTIFICATION, jettonAmount: toNano("100"), fromUser: user.address, }); expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({ from: jettonWallet.address, to: contract.address, success: true, }); }); ``` **References**: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/ton/fake_jetton_contract --- ### 4.3 FORWARD TON WITHOUT GAS CHECK ⚠️ HIGH **Description**: Allowing users to specify `forward_ton_amount` in outgoing messages without validating sufficient gas can drain the contract's TON balance. User pays small gas but specifies large forward amount from contract balance. **Detection Patterns**: ```func ;; VULNERABLE: User-specified forward_ton_amount without validation () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::transfer) { slice to_address = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); int amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); int forward_ton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); ;; USER CONTROLLED! ;; WRONG: No check that msg_value covers forward_ton_amount ;; Contract pays from its own balance! var msg = begin_cell() .store_uint(0x18, 6) .store_slice(to_address) .store_coins(forward_ton_amount) ;; Drains contract balance! .store_uint(0, 1 + 4 + 4 + 64 + 32 + 1 + 1) .end_cell(); send_raw_message(msg, 1); } } ;; VULNERABLE: No gas validation for operations () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::claim_reward) { slice user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); int forward_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); ;; Calculate reward int reward = calculate_reward(user); ;; WRONG: Sends user-specified forward_amount ;; No validation that msg_value >= tx_fee + forward_amount var msg = begin_cell() .store_uint(0x18, 6) .store_slice(user) .store_coins(forward_amount + reward) .store_uint(0, 1 + 4 + 4 + 64 + 32 + 1 + 1) .end_cell(); send_raw_message(msg, 1); ;; Contract pays gas! } } ``` **What to Check**: - [ ] User cannot specify arbitrary forward TON amounts - [ ] IF forward amount is user-specified: validate `msg_value >= tx_fee + forward_ton_amount` - [ ] Prefer fixed/bounded forward amounts - [ ] Contract balance protected from drainage - [ ] Gas costs accounted for in all operations **Mitigation**: ```func ;; SECURE: Fixed forward amounts (PREFERRED) const int FORWARD_TON_AMOUNT = 50000000; ;; 0.05 TON (fixed) const int TX_FEE = 10000000; ;; 0.01 TON estimated fee () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::transfer) { slice to_address = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); int amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); ;; Use fixed forward amount ;; No user control, no drainage risk var msg = begin_cell() .store_uint(0x18, 6) .store_slice(to_address) .store_coins(FORWARD_TON_AMOUNT) ;; Fixed amount .store_uint(0, 1 + 4 + 4 + 64 + 32 + 1 + 1) ;; Store message body .end_cell(); send_raw_message(msg, 1); } } ;; SECURE: Validate msg_value covers all costs (if user-specified) () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::transfer_with_forward) { slice to_address = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); int amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); int forward_ton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); ;; CRITICAL: Validate msg_value covers tx fee + forward amount throw_unless(error::insufficient_gas, msg_value >= TX_FEE + forward_ton_amount); var msg = begin_cell() .store_uint(0x18, 6) .store_slice(to_address) .store_coins(forward_ton_amount) .store_uint(0, 1 + 4 + 4 + 64 + 32 + 1 + 1) .end_cell(); ;; Safe: user provided sufficient gas send_raw_message(msg, 1); } } ;; SECURE: Bounded forward amounts const int MAX_FORWARD_TON = 100000000; ;; 0.1 TON maximum () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::claim_with_notification) { slice user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); int forward_ton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); ;; Enforce maximum forward amount throw_unless(error::forward_amount_too_high, forward_ton_amount <= MAX_FORWARD_TON); ;; Validate msg_value covers costs throw_unless(error::insufficient_gas, msg_value >= TX_FEE + forward_ton_amount); ;; Calculate reward from contract logic int reward = calculate_reward(user); var msg = begin_cell() .store_uint(0x18, 6) .store_slice(user) .store_coins(reward) ;; Reward from contract .store_uint(0, 1 + 4 + 4 + 64 + 32 + 1 + 1) ;; Message body .end_cell(); ;; Send with user's gas send_raw_message(msg, 64); ;; Flag 64: use all remaining gas from incoming message } } ;; SECURE: Don't allow user to specify forward amount at all () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::withdraw) { slice user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); ;; No forward_ton_amount parameter ;; Use contract's calculated amount only int withdrawal_amount = calculate_withdrawal(user); var msg = begin_cell() .store_uint(0x18, 6) .store_slice(user) .store_coins(withdrawal_amount) ;; Contract controlled .store_uint(0, 1 + 4 + 4 + 64 + 32 + 1 + 1) .end_cell(); send_raw_message(msg, 1); } } ``` **Send Message Flags Reference**: ```func ;; send_raw_message flag values: ;; 0 - Normal send, pay fees from message value ;; 1 - Pay fees separately from contract balance ;; 64 - Return remaining value from incoming message ;; 128 - Carry all remaining balance ;; Safe patterns: send_raw_message(msg, 64); ;; Use incoming msg_value for fees send_raw_message(msg, 0); ;; Fees from message value itself ;; Dangerous with user input: send_raw_message(msg, 1); ;; Fees from contract - validate msg_value! send_raw_message(msg, 128); ;; Never use with user-controlled amounts! ``` **Testing**: ```typescript // Test cannot drain contract with large forward amount it("should reject large forward amount without sufficient gas", async () => { const result = await contract.sendInternalMessage(user.getSender(), { value: toNano("0.01"), // Only 0.01 TON provided body: { op: OP_CODES.TRANSFER, toAddress: recipient.address, amount: toNano("100"), forwardTonAmount: toNano("10"), // Trying to forward 10 TON! }, }); expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({ success: false, exitCode: ERROR_CODES.INSUFFICIENT_GAS, }); // Contract balance should not decrease expect(await contract.getBalance()).toEqual(initialBalance); }); ``` **References**: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/ton/forward_value_without_check ---
-
-
SKILL.md 14.7 KB
--- name: ton-vulnerability-scanner description: Scans TON (The Open Network) smart contracts for 3 critical vulnerabilities including integer-as-boolean misuse, fake Jetton contracts, and forward TON without gas checks. Use when auditing FunC contracts. --- # TON Vulnerability Scanner ## 1. Purpose Systematically scan TON blockchain smart contracts written in FunC for platform-specific security vulnerabilities related to boolean logic, Jetton token handling, and gas management. This skill encodes 3 critical vulnerability patterns unique to TON's architecture. ## 2. When to Use This Skill - Auditing TON smart contracts (FunC language) - Reviewing Jetton token implementations - Validating token transfer notification handlers - Pre-launch security assessment of TON dApps - Reviewing gas forwarding logic - Assessing boolean condition handling ## 3. Platform Detection ### File Extensions & Indicators - **FunC files**: `.fc`, `.func` ### Language/Framework Markers ```func ;; FunC contract indicators #include "imports/stdlib.fc"; () recv_internal(int my_balance, int msg_value, cell in_msg_full, slice in_msg_body) impure { ;; Contract logic } () recv_external(slice in_msg) impure { ;; External message handler } ;; Common patterns send_raw_message() load_uint(), load_msg_addr(), load_coins() begin_cell(), end_cell(), store_*() transfer_notification operation op::transfer, op::transfer_notification .store_uint().store_slice().store_coins() ``` ### Project Structure - `contracts/*.fc` - FunC contract source - `wrappers/*.ts` - TypeScript wrappers - `tests/*.spec.ts` - Contract tests - `ton.config.ts` or `wasm.config.ts` - TON project config ### Tool Support - **TON Blueprint**: Development framework for TON - **toncli**: CLI tool for TON contracts - **ton-compiler**: FunC compiler - Manual review primarily (limited automated tools) --- ## 4. How This Skill Works When invoked, I will: 1. **Search your codebase** for FunC/Tact contracts 2. **Analyze each contract** for the 3 vulnerability patterns 3. **Report findings** with file references and severity, above them a coverage table carrying a verdict for every pattern 4. **Provide fixes** for each identified issue 5. **Emit the coverage table** — all 3 patterns, each with a verdict --- ## 5. Example Output When vulnerabilities are found, you'll get a report like this: ``` === TON VULNERABILITY SCAN RESULTS === Project: my-ton-contract Files Scanned: 3 (.fc, .tact) Vulnerabilities Found: 2 Coverage: 3/3 patterns reported 1 Integer as Boolean .............. found contracts/wallet.fc:45 2 Fake Jetton Contract ............ found contracts/staking.fc:85 3 Forward TON Without Gas Check ... clear forward amounts fixed at 0.05 TON --- [CRITICAL] Fake Jetton Contract - Missing Sender Validation File: contracts/staking.fc:85 Pattern: transfer_notification sender not checked against the stored Jetton wallet ``` --- ## 6. Vulnerability Patterns (3 Patterns) I check for 3 critical vulnerability patterns unique to TON. For detailed detection patterns, code examples, mitigations, and testing strategies, see [VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md](resources/VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md). ### Pattern Summary: 1. **Integer as Boolean** ⚠️ HIGH - Positive integers used as true; FunC's true is -1 2. **Fake Jetton Contract** ⚠️ CRITICAL - `transfer_notification` sender not validated 3. **Forward TON Without Gas Check** ⚠️ HIGH - Forwarding without reserving gas for the rest of execution For complete vulnerability patterns with code examples, see [VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md](resources/VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md). ## 7. Scanning Workflow ### Step 1: Platform Identification 1. Verify FunC language (`.fc` or `.func` files) 2. Check for TON Blueprint or toncli project structure 3. Locate contract source files 4. Identify Jetton-related contracts ### Step 2: Boolean Logic Review ```bash # Find boolean-like variables rg "int.*is_|int.*has_|int.*flag|int.*enabled" contracts/ # Check for positive integers used as booleans rg "= 1;|return 1;" contracts/ | grep -E "is_|has_|flag|enabled|valid" # Look for NOT operations on boolean-like values rg "~.*\(|~ " contracts/ ``` For each boolean: - [ ] Uses -1 for true, 0 for false - [ ] NOT using 1 or other positive integers - [ ] Logic operations work correctly ### Step 3: Jetton Handler Analysis ```bash # Find transfer_notification handlers rg "transfer_notification|op::transfer_notification" contracts/ ``` For each Jetton handler: - [ ] Validates sender address - [ ] Sender checked against stored Jetton wallet address - [ ] Cannot trust forward_payload without sender validation - [ ] Has admin function to set Jetton wallet address ### Step 4: Gas/Forward Amount Review ```bash # Find forward amount usage rg "forward_ton_amount|forward_amount" contracts/ rg "load_coins\(\)" contracts/ # Find send_raw_message calls rg "send_raw_message" contracts/ ``` For each outgoing message: - [ ] Forward amounts are fixed/bounded - [ ] OR user-provided amounts validated against msg_value - [ ] Cannot drain contract balance - [ ] Appropriate send_raw_message flags used ### Step 5: Manual Review TON contracts require thorough manual review: - Boolean logic with `~`, `&`, `|` operators - Message parsing and validation - Gas economics and fee calculations - Storage operations and data serialization --- ## 8. Reporting Format ### Coverage Table Report on every pattern in §6, whether or not it turned anything up. Emit this table above the findings, with all 3 rows present: | # | Pattern | Verdict | Evidence | |---|---------|---------|----------| | 1 | Integer as Boolean | `clear` | searched `is_`/`has_`/`flag`; all set to -1 | | 2 | Fake Jetton Contract | | | | 3 | Forward TON Without Gas Check | | | Each verdict is one of: - **`found`** — cite `file:line` and write the finding up in full below. - **`clear`** — the pattern applies to this contract and the contract handles it. Name the function, stored address, or check you searched for, so a reader can repeat the search. - **`n/a`** — the pattern cannot apply here. Give the reason in one clause ("this contract handles no Jetton transfer notifications"). Not having looked is not `n/a`. Three patterns is a short list, which makes an incomplete table harder to excuse rather than easier: a report covering one pattern and silent on the other two reads exactly like a clean contract. Emit all three rows even when all three are `clear`. A row whose Verdict cell is empty is incomplete in the same way: row 1 above is filled in to show the shape, and every row is filled in the same way before the report is done. ### Finding Template ````markdown ## [CRITICAL] Fake Jetton Contract - Missing Sender Validation **Location**: `contracts/staking.fc:85-95` (recv_internal, transfer_notification handler) **Description**: The `transfer_notification` operation handler does not validate that the sender is the expected Jetton wallet contract. Any attacker can send a fake `transfer_notification` message claiming to have transferred tokens, crediting themselves without actually depositing any Jettons. **Vulnerable Code**: ```func // staking.fc, line 85 if (op == op::transfer_notification) { int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); ;; WRONG: No validation of sender_address! ;; Attacker can claim any jetton_amount credit_user(from_user, jetton_amount); } ``` **Attack Scenario**: 1. Attacker deploys malicious contract 2. Malicious contract sends `transfer_notification` message to staking contract 3. Message claims attacker transferred 1,000,000 Jettons 4. Staking contract credits attacker without checking sender 5. Attacker can now withdraw from contract or gain benefits without depositing **Proof of Concept**: ```typescript // Attacker sends fake transfer_notification const attackerContract = await blockchain.treasury("attacker"); await stakingContract.sendInternalMessage(attackerContract.getSender(), { op: OP_CODES.TRANSFER_NOTIFICATION, jettonAmount: toNano("1000000"), // Fake amount fromUser: attackerContract.address, }); // Attacker successfully credited without sending real Jettons const balance = await stakingContract.getUserBalance(attackerContract.address); expect(balance).toEqual(toNano("1000000")); // Attack succeeded ``` **Recommendation**: Store expected Jetton wallet address and validate sender: ```func global slice jetton_wallet_address; () recv_internal(...) impure { load_data(); ;; Load jetton_wallet_address from storage slice cs = in_msg_full.begin_parse(); int flags = cs~load_uint(4); slice sender_address = cs~load_msg_addr(); int op = in_msg_body~load_uint(32); if (op == op::transfer_notification) { ;; CRITICAL: Validate sender throw_unless(error::wrong_jetton_wallet, equal_slices(sender_address, jetton_wallet_address)); int jetton_amount = in_msg_body~load_coins(); slice from_user = in_msg_body~load_msg_addr(); ;; Safe to credit user credit_user(from_user, jetton_amount); } } ``` **References**: - building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/ton/fake_jetton_contract ```` --- ## 9. Priority Guidelines ### Critical (Immediate Fix Required) - Fake Jetton contract (unauthorized minting/crediting) ### High (Fix Before Launch) - Integer as boolean (logic errors, broken conditions) - Forward TON without gas check (balance drainage) --- ## 10. Testing Recommendations ### Unit Tests ```typescript import { Blockchain } from "@ton/sandbox"; import { toNano } from "ton-core"; describe("Security tests", () => { let blockchain: Blockchain; let contract: Contract; beforeEach(async () => { blockchain = await Blockchain.create(); contract = blockchain.openContract(await Contract.fromInit()); }); it("should use correct boolean values", async () => { // Test that TRUE = -1, FALSE = 0 const result = await contract.getFlag(); expect(result).toEqual(-1n); // True expect(result).not.toEqual(1n); // Not 1! }); it("should reject fake jetton transfer", async () => { const attacker = await blockchain.treasury("attacker"); const result = await contract.send( attacker.getSender(), { value: toNano("0.05") }, { $$type: "TransferNotification", query_id: 0n, amount: toNano("1000"), from: attacker.address, } ); expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({ success: false, // Should reject }); }); it("should validate gas for forward amount", async () => { const result = await contract.send( user.getSender(), { value: toNano("0.01") }, // Insufficient gas { $$type: "Transfer", to: recipient.address, forward_ton_amount: toNano("1"), // Trying to forward 1 TON } ); expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({ success: false, }); }); }); ``` ### Integration Tests ```typescript // Test with real Jetton wallet it("should accept transfer from real jetton wallet", async () => { // Deploy actual Jetton minter and wallet const jettonMinter = await blockchain.openContract(JettonMinter.create()); const userJettonWallet = await jettonMinter.getWalletAddress(user.address); // Set jetton wallet in contract await contract.setJettonWallet(userJettonWallet); // Real transfer from Jetton wallet const result = await userJettonWallet.sendTransfer( user.getSender(), contract.address, toNano("100"), {} ); expect(result.transactions).toHaveTransaction({ to: contract.address, success: true, }); }); ``` --- ## 11. Additional Resources - **Building Secure Contracts**: `building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/ton/` - **TON Documentation**: https://docs.ton.org/ - **FunC Documentation**: https://docs.ton.org/develop/func/overview - **TON Blueprint**: https://github.com/ton-org/blueprint - **Jetton Standard**: https://github.com/ton-blockchain/TEPs/blob/master/text/0074-jettons-standard.md --- ## 12. Quick Reference Checklist Before completing TON contract audit: **Boolean Logic (HIGH)**: - [ ] All boolean values use -1 (true) and 0 (false) - [ ] NO positive integers (1, 2, etc.) used as booleans - [ ] Functions returning booleans return -1 for true - [ ] Boolean logic with `~`, `&`, `|` uses correct values - [ ] Tests verify boolean operations work correctly **Jetton Security (CRITICAL)**: - [ ] `transfer_notification` handler validates sender address - [ ] Sender checked against stored Jetton wallet address - [ ] Jetton wallet address stored during initialization - [ ] Admin function to set/update Jetton wallet - [ ] Cannot trust forward_payload without sender validation - [ ] Tests with fake Jetton contracts verify rejection **Gas & Forward Amounts (HIGH)**: - [ ] Forward TON amounts are fixed/bounded - [ ] OR user-provided amounts validated: `msg_value >= tx_fee + forward_amount` - [ ] Contract balance protected from drainage - [ ] Appropriate `send_raw_message` flags used - [ ] Tests verify cannot drain contract with excessive forward amounts **Testing**: - [ ] Unit tests for all three vulnerability types - [ ] Integration tests with real Jetton contracts - [ ] Gas cost analysis for all operations - [ ] Testnet deployment before mainnet - [ ] Coverage table emitted with all 3 rows, each carrying a verdict of `found`, `clear` or `n/a` with a reason --- ## 13. Rationalizations to Reject - **"The contract is small, so most patterns obviously don't apply."** Obvious to whom? An `n/a` costs one clause and makes the judgment reviewable. Silence records nothing, and a reader cannot tell it apart from not having checked. With only three patterns, there is no version of this scan too large to complete. - **"There is no automated tooling for FunC, so coverage can't be systematic."** The absence of a scanner is the reason the table matters, not an excuse for skipping it. Manual review is the method here; the table is what makes it auditable. - **"I checked the patterns that matter for this contract."** Deciding which patterns matter *is* the scan, not a precondition for starting it. Rank by severity after the table is complete, not by leaving rows out. - **"No findings, so there is nothing to report."** A zero-finding scan still emits the full coverage table. That table is the deliverable: it is what distinguishes a contract that was examined from one that was glanced at. - **"The sender is obviously the Jetton wallet."** Then cite the stored address it is compared against. Any contract can send a transfer notification; the check is a comparison against an address the contract itself computed, and its absence is the fake-Jetton bug. - **"The message is non-bounceable, so gas doesn't matter."** Name the reserve. Forwarding without leaving enough for the remaining execution strands the contract mid-operation regardless of bounce behavior.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.