CVE-2018-13129
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 · uneditedSP8DE Token (SPX) is a smart contract running on Ethereum. The mint function has an integer overflow that allows minted tokens to be arbitrarily retrieved by the contract owner.
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 · moderate confidenceThe SP8DE Token (SPX) Ethereum smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability in its mint function. This flaw allows the contract owner to mint an arbitrarily large amount of tokens beyond normal bounds, effectively enabling unlimited token creation.
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.
-
Locate the SPX token contractIdentify the deployed SP8DE Token (SPX) contract address on the Ethereum blockchain using block explorers (Etherscan) or official project documentationAffected if The contract address cannot be verified or is not the official SPX token contract
-
Retrieve the contract source codeObtain the deployed contract source code from a blockchain explorer or official repository. Look for SPX token contract verified source codeAffected if Source code is not available or not verified, preventing inspection of the mint function
-
Inspect the mint function for SafeMath usageExamine the mint function in the source code to determine if it uses SafeMath library functions (such as add, mul) for arithmetic operations on token amountsAffected if The mint function does NOT use SafeMath and performs direct arithmetic operations (e.g., totalSupply + amount) without overflow protection
-
Check for explicit overflow validationLook for manual overflow checks in the mint function, such as require statements validating that totalSupply + amount does not exceed a maximum value or trigger overflowAffected if No explicit overflow validation exists in the mint function before performing arithmetic
-
Verify token supply cap existsCheck if the contract implements a maximum supply cap (e.g., a MAX_SUPPLY constant) that limits the total tokens that can ever be mintedAffected if No supply cap is implemented, allowing unlimited token creation by the contract owner
You are affected if the deployed SPX token contract mint function lacks SafeMath library usage, explicit overflow checks, and supply cap restrictions, allowing the owner to mint arbitrarily many 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 dataFix the mint function to use SafeMath libraries or explicit overflow checks to prevent integer overflow conditions; also consider implementing access controls and token supply caps.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13129 — 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-2018-13129 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