CVE-2018-13196
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 sell function of a smart contract implementation for T-Swap-Token (T-S-T), an Ethereum token, has an integer overflow in which "amount * sellPrice" can be zero, consequently reducing a seller's assets.
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 T-Swap-Token (T-S-T) smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability in its sell function where the calculation 'amount * sellPrice' can overflow to zero due to missing overflow checks. This causes sellers to lose their tokens without receiving proper payment, as the multiplication result becomes zero instead of the correct product.
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 the smart contractLocate the deployed contract on the blockchain and retrieve its source code. Confirm it is the T-Swap Token (T-S-T) by checking the contract name, token symbol, and contract address against known deployments of the T-Swap Token project.Affected if The deployed contract is the T-Swap Token (T-S-T) project
-
Locate the sell functionSearch the contract source code for a function named 'sell', 'sellToken', or similar that handles token selling/withdrawal operations.Affected if A sell function exists in the contract
-
Check for vulnerable multiplication patternExamine the sell function for the expression 'amount * sellPrice' or similar variable multiplication that calculates payment for sold tokens.Affected if The code contains 'amount * sellPrice' or equivalent multiplication without overflow protection
-
Verify overflow protection is missingCheck whether the contract uses SafeMath library for the multiplication (e.g., 'sellPrice.mul(amount)' or 'amount.mul(sellPrice)') OR is compiled with Solidity version 0.8.0 or higher which has built-in overflow checks.Affected if The multiplication uses raw arithmetic operators (*) instead of SafeMath.mul() AND the contract is compiled with Solidity below 0.8.0
The environment is affected if the deployed contract is T-Swap Token (T-S-T) and its sell function contains the 'amount * sellPrice' multiplication without SafeMath or Solidity 0.8+ overflow protection.
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 unsafe arithmetic operations with SafeMath library functions (for Solidity <0.8) or upgrade to Solidity 0.8+ which includes built-in overflow checks. A full security audit of the contract is recommended after the fix.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13196 — 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-2018-13196 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