CVE-2018-12079
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 · uneditedThe mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for Substratum (SUB), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, has no period constraint, which allows the owner to increase the total supply of the digital assets arbitrarily so as to make profits, aka the "tradeTrap" 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 confidenceThe Substratum (SUB) ERC20 token smart contract's mintToken function lacks time-based or supply constraints, enabling the contract owner to arbitrarily mint new tokens at any time. This creates an unchecked inflation vector where the owner can increase total supply and profit by selling newly created tokens, known as the 'tradeTrap' vulnerability.
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 SUB token holdingsCheck your wallet or blockchain explorer for any SUB token balance. Note the contract address used.Affected if You hold any amount of SUB tokens from the affected contract
-
Locate the deployed contract addressConfirm the contract address matches the official Substratum token deployment. Cross-reference with the token's official documentation or reputable token listing sites.Affected if The contract address matches the Substratum token deployment
-
Inspect the contract for mintToken functionRead the contract bytecode or source code from the blockchain. Look for a function named 'mintToken', 'mint', or similar that creates new tokens.Affected if A mintToken or equivalent function exists in the contract
-
Verify minting access controlsExamine the minting function's visibility and access modifiers. Check if it has any require statements, role-based restrictions, or supply caps. Look for require statements limiting who can call it and whether total supply is bounded.Affected if The minting function has no access controls, time locks, or supply caps - allowing the owner to mint arbitrarily
-
Check for historical minting activityReview on-chain events or transaction history for the contract. Look for any Mint or Transfer events that indicate new tokens were created after initial distribution.Affected if New tokens have been minted after the initial token distribution
You are affected if you hold SUB tokens from the official contract and that contract contains an unrestricted mintToken function allowing the owner to create unlimited new tokens.
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 dataThe minting function must be permanently disabled or replaced with a properly constrained mechanism (e.g., capped supply, time-locked minting, or community-governed approval). A contract upgrade or migration to a fixed-supply model with audited minting controls is required.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-12079 — 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-2018-12079 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