CVE-2018-13223
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 R Time Token v3 (RS) (Contract Name: RTokenMain), 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 confidenceInteger overflow in the RTokenMain smart contract's sell function allows amount * sellPrice to compute as zero due to arithmetic wraparound, causing sellers to receive nothing while losing their token assets.
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 RTokenMain contract source codeFind the RTokenMain.sol file in your project repository or deployed contract bytecode metadataAffected if Cannot locate the contract source for review - proceed to bytecode analysis
-
Check the Solidity compiler version usedInspect the 'pragma solidity' directive at the top of the contract fileAffected if Version is below 0.8.0 without the SafeMath library imported and used
-
Verify SafeMath usage in the sell functionSearch for 'import SafeMath' and confirm the sell function uses SafeMath.mul() for the amount * sellPrice calculationAffected if No SafeMath library imported or the multiplication uses native Solidity arithmetic (*) instead of SafeMath.mul()
-
Inspect the sell function arithmetic directlyLocate the 'sell' function and examine the line performing amount * sellPrice or equivalent calculationAffected if The multiplication uses native operators without overflow checks and amount * sellPrice could wrap to zero with large values
-
Check for overflow-safe Solidity 0.8+ builtinsIf using Solidity 0.8+, confirm the compiler version and that no 'unchecked' block wraps the sell function arithmeticAffected if Using Solidity 0.8+ with 'unchecked' blocks around the multiplication or compiled without default overflow checks
Your environment is affected if the RTokenMain smart contract uses Solidity below 0.8 without SafeMath, or uses native arithmetic for amount * sellPrice without 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 vulnerable arithmetic operations with SafeMath library (Solidity <0.8) or upgrade to Solidity 0.8+ with built-in overflow checks; add proper input validation and reentrancy safeguards.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing10.0 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 $6,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13223 — 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-2018-13223 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