CVE-2018-13222
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 ObjectToken (OBJ), 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 ObjectToken (OBJ) Ethereum smart contract has an integer overflow vulnerability in its sell function where the calculation 'amount * sellPrice' can result in zero due to overflow, causing sellers to lose their assets while receiving nothing in return.
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 ObjectToken deploymentSearch your contract registry or blockchain explorer for contracts named 'ObjectToken' or 'OBJ' that implement a sell function returning Ether in exchange for tokensAffected if A contract with the name ObjectToken or OBJ exists in your environment
-
Locate the sell functionReview the source code of the identified ObjectToken contract and locate the sell() function that calculates token exchange valueAffected if The contract contains a sell function that accepts token amount as input
-
Inspect the multiplication in sell functionExamine the line within the sell function that calculates the payout, specifically looking for 'amount * sellPrice' or similar multiplication without SafeMathAffected if The payout calculation uses direct multiplication like 'amount * sellPrice' without SafeMath.mul() or equivalent overflow protection
-
Check Solidity versionLocate the 'pragma solidity' declaration at the top of the contract source codeAffected if The contract is compiled with Solidity version below 0.8.0 (e.g., 0.7.x, 0.6.x, etc.)
-
Verify SafeMath usageSearch the contract code for 'import ... SafeMath' or 'using SafeMath for' statements, and confirm the multiplication uses SafeMath.mul instead of the * operatorAffected if The contract does not import or use SafeMath library for arithmetic operations, or uses direct * operator for the amount calculation
Your environment is affected if you have deployed an ObjectToken contract with a sell function that performs 'amount * sellPrice' using direct multiplication without SafeMath, compiled with Solidity below 0.8.0
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 the unsafe multiplication in the sell function with SafeMath library functions (SafeMath.mul) or upgrade to Solidity 0.8+ which includes built-in overflow checks to prevent the multiplication from wrapping to zero.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13222 — 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-2018-13222 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