CVE-2018-11687
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn integer overflow in the distributeBTR function of a smart contract implementation for Bitcoin Red (BTCR), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows the owner to accomplish an unauthorized increase of digital assets by providing a large address[] array, as exploited in the wild in May 2018, aka the "ownerUnderflow" issue.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceInteger overflow in the distributeBTR function of the Bitcoin Red (BTCR) ERC20 token allows the contract owner to generate unauthorized token supply by providing a large address array, causing an arithmetic overflow that benefits the owner.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if the deployed contract is Bitcoin Red (BTCR)Call the token contract's name() and symbol() functions, or verify the contract address against known BTCR deployment addressesAffected if The contract returns 'Bitcoin Red' as the token name or 'BTCR' as the symbol
-
Verify the distributeBTR function existsQuery the contract bytecode or source code for the function signature 'distributeBTR' or 'function distributeBTR(address[])'Affected if The distributeBTR function is present in the deployed contract
-
Check if SafeMath library is usedReview the contract source code for 'using SafeMath' declarations or SafeMath method calls (add, sub, mul, div) within the distributeBTR functionAffected if SafeMath is not imported or not used for arithmetic operations in distributeBTR
-
Inspect the array length calculation for overflow vulnerabilityExamine the distributeBTR function logic where the address array length is used in arithmetic (e.g., amount calculation), looking for unchecked multiplicationAffected if The function performs arithmetic on array.length without overflow guards
-
Confirm owner access to the vulnerable functionCheck the function visibility modifier (e.g., 'onlyOwner') and determine if the deployer address can call distributeBTRAffected if The contract owner can call distributeBTR and trigger the overflow
A user is affected if they hold or interact with the BTCR token contract where distributeBTR lacks SafeMath or overflow checks and is callable by the owner.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement SafeMath library for all arithmetic operations in the distributeBTR function, or add explicit overflow/underflow checks before state modifications, and consider implementing a maximum distribution limit.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11687 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2018-11687 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data