CVE-2018-13146
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, buy, and sell functions of a smart contract implementation for LEF, an Ethereum token, have an integer overflow.
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 mintToken, buy, and sell functions in the LEF Ethereum token smart contract lack proper integer overflow protection. This allows attackers to manipulate arithmetic operations to cause unexpected token minting, purchasing, or selling outcomes by providing specially crafted input values that exceed maximum integer limits.
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 LEF token contract deploymentSearch your smart contract repository or blockchain explorer for contracts containing 'Lef', 'LEF', or the token name associated with the Lef Project. Look for .sol source files or deployed contract addresses.Affected if The LEF token smart contract from Lef Project is deployed or present in your environment
-
Locate the mintToken, buy, and sell functionsOpen the Lef token contract source code and search for function definitions named 'mintToken', 'buy', and 'sell'. Verify all three functions exist in the contract.Affected if All three functions (mintToken, buy, sell) are present in the contract code
-
Check for SafeMath library usageSearch the contract code for 'using SafeMath' statements or 'import "./SafeMath.sol"' statements at the top of the file. Also look for SafeMath method calls like 'add()', 'sub()', 'mul()' within the mintToken, buy, and sell functions.Affected if The contract does not import or use the SafeMath library, and the functions use direct arithmetic operators (+, -, *, /)
-
Verify Solidity compiler versionCheck the 'pragma solidity' directive at the top of the contract file to identify the compiler version being used.Affected if The contract is compiled with a Solidity version below 0.8.0 (e.g., pragma solidity ^0.6.0)
-
Inspect arithmetic operations in affected functionsReview the implementation of mintToken, buy, and sell functions for direct arithmetic operations on token balances or ether amounts without SafeMath wrappers or Solidity 0.8+ built-in checks.Affected if Direct arithmetic operations (+, -, *, /) are used on token/ether values without overflow protection
Your environment is affected if the LEF token contract is deployed and uses direct arithmetic operations in mintToken, buy, or sell functions without SafeMath library or Solidity 0.8+ compiler version.
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 dataReplace Solidity arithmetic operations with SafeMath library functions or migrate to Solidity 0.8+ which includes built-in overflow checking. Thoroughly test all three affected functions with boundary value inputs.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13146 — 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-2018-13146 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