CVE-2018-13224
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 Virtual Energy Units (VEU) (Contract Name: VEU_TokenERC20), 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 vulnerability in the VEU_TokenERC20 smart contract's sell function allows 'amount * sellPrice' to wrap to zero due to lack of overflow protection, causing sellers to receive zero ETH while losing their tokens.
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 if VEU_TokenERC20 contract is deployedQuery your blockchain for contracts named 'VEU_TokenERC20' or 'Virtual Energy Units' and retrieve their deployed bytecode or source codeAffected if The contract with name VEU_TokenERC20 exists in your environment
-
Locate the sell function in the contractExamine the contract source code or decompiled bytecode and locate the function that handles token selling (typically named 'sell' or 'sellTokens')Affected if A sell function exists in the contract
-
Check for SafeMath usage in multiplicationSearch within the sell function for the pattern 'amount * sellPrice' and verify if it uses SafeMath library (e.g., 'sellPrice.mul(amount)') or raw multiplication operators (*,*)Affected if The multiplication uses raw operators like '*' instead of SafeMath.mul() or Solidity 0.8+ built-in checked math
-
Verify Solidity compiler versionCheck the contract metadata or source code pragma statement to determine the Solidity version used for compilationAffected if Contract is compiled with Solidity version earlier than 0.8.0 (e.g., 0.4.x, 0.5.x, 0.6.x) which lacks built-in overflow checks
-
Test for zero-value multiplicationIf you have test tokens, call the sell function with an amount where amount * sellPrice would overflow to zero (very large numbers near uint256 max), and observe if you receive zero ETHAffected if Calling sell with large amounts results in receiving zero ETH despite losing tokens
Your environment is affected if you have deployed the VEU_TokenERC20 contract and its sell function uses raw multiplication for 'amount * sellPrice' without SafeMath or Solidity 0.8+ overflow checks.
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 dataImplement SafeMath library for integer operations or upgrade to Solidity 0.8+ with built-in overflow checks, and add explicit validation that the multiplication result is greater than zero before proceeding with the sale.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13224 — 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-2018-13224 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