This story on HackerNoon has a decentralized backup on Sia.
Transaction ID: QQcAru6joCc904pl3_b6hZvnRPiV6APSu4_wxTclK2c
Cover

Exploring a Web3 Smart Contract Issue: Gas Exploitation via Unchecked Loops

Written by @vinaysati | Published on 2025/5/19

TL;DR
In blockchain development, smart contracts may encounter serious vulnerabilities, especially when there’s a loop that iterates over data provided by users.

⚠️ Note

This content is meant purely for learning and research purposes. Avoid testing vulnerabilities on public blockchains. Always follow responsible disclosure practices when identifying bugs in smart contracts.

👋 Hello everyone, I’m Vinay Sati — a Bug Bounty Hunter, Forensic Investigator, and Web3 Security Tester.

I consider myself a versatile cybersecurity professional, passionate about finding vulnerabilities, securing smart contracts, and investigating digital threats. In this article, I’ll share a real example of a Web3 exploit and show you how to identify and prevent such risks.

Introduction

In blockchain development, smart contracts may encounter serious vulnerabilities, especially when:

  • There’s a loop that iterates over data provided by users
  • The array input length is not limited
  • Proper permissions or access control are missing

These issues can result in the contract becoming unusable, gas being wasted, or potential abuse by malicious actors.

Let's look at a clear example of this kind of vulnerability, along with a simplified code sample.

Vulnerable Smart Contract Example

Below is a contract that simulates a basic batch airdrop. However, it contains a key flaw:

💀 What Could Go Wrong?

No restriction on who can call the airdrop() function.

No limit on the number of addresses passed into the function.

Someone could pass in thousands of addresses, causing the loop to consume all available gas.

This can disable the contract's functionality or cause ETH to be locked due to failed execution.

🧪 Simulating the Exploit (In a Test Environment)

Here’s an example using a development framework that demonstrates how this kind of exploit might occur:

🛡️ How Can This Be Fixed?

✅ Add Access Restrictions

Update the vulnerable function like this:

🧯 Summary of Fixes

Fix

Purpose

Add onlyOwner modifier

Prevent unauthorized access to core logic

Add input length check

Avoid gas exhaustion through oversized loops

Consider off-chain batching

Handle large distributions more safely

📸 Visual Aids (Optional for Reports)

  • Attack Flow Diagram: User ➜ Calls vulnerable function ➜ Contract loops ➜ Exceeds gas ➜ Fails

  • Before vs. After code comparison (highlighting secure access control)

🚀 Real Examples

Project

Vulnerability

Outcome

Akropolis

Reentrancy + logic flaw

~$2M lost

Bancor

Infinite loop DoS

250 ETH bounty awarded

DYDX

Gas griefing + front-running

Resolved via bug report

🙌 Final Thoughts

Even basic oversights like failing to limit array sizes or restricting function access can result in major vulnerabilities. Taking the time to audit code, simulate edge cases, and follow best practices helps protect users and build trust in decentralized systems.

[story continues]


Written by
@vinaysati
Bug Bounty Hunter and Under India Top 10 Cyber Security Researcher By NCIIPC and under top 100 web3 hacker in Hackenproof

Topics and
tags
solidity|bug-bounty|smart-contract-security|blockchain-development|smart-contract-vulnerabilities|blockchain-vulnerabilities|blockchain-security|web3-ethical-hacking
This story on HackerNoon has a decentralized backup on Sia.
Transaction ID: QQcAru6joCc904pl3_b6hZvnRPiV6APSu4_wxTclK2c