BitteluxApplication · Bittelux Project

CVE-2018-13326

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2018-07-05
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
The transfer and transferFrom functions of a smart contract implementation for Bittelux (BTX), an Ethereum token, have an integer overflow. NOTE: this has been disputed by a third party.

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 · moderate confidence

Integer overflow vulnerability in the transfer and transferFrom functions of the Bittelux (BTX) Ethereum token smart contract. The lack of proper bounds checking on arithmetic operations allows token amounts to overflow, potentially enabling attackers to manipulate token balances or transfer unauthorized amounts.

MitigationImplement SafeMath library functions or add explicit overflow/underflow checks on all arithmetic operations in transfer functions. Consider upgrading to a audited token contract with proper integer handling.

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 data
BitteluxApplication
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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:3.1/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm BTX token presence
    Check your Ethereum wallet or blockchain explorer for any Bittelux (BTX) token balances or token transfers in your transaction history
    Affected if You hold or have ever interacted with the Bittelux (BTX) token
  2. Locate the deployed BTX contract
    Find the contract address for Bittelux token by searching for 'Bittelux BTX' on Etherscan or similar blockchain explorer, then view the contract source code or decompiled bytecode
    Affected if A Bittelux contract address exists and is accessible on the blockchain
  3. Inspect transfer function for SafeMath usage
    In the contract source code, locate the transfer function and search for 'SafeMath' or 'require' statements that check for integer overflow/underflow on arithmetic operations involving token amounts
    Affected if The transfer function performs arithmetic (e.g., balances[msg.sender] - _value) without using SafeMath library or explicit overflow checks
  4. Inspect transferFrom function for SafeMath usage
    In the contract source code, locate the transferFrom function and similarly verify whether arithmetic operations on _value or balances use SafeMath or have explicit overflow/underflow validation
    Affected if The transferFrom function performs arithmetic without SafeMath or explicit overflow checks
  5. Check for unchecked arithmetic operations
    Search the contract code for direct subtraction or addition operations on balances (e.g., balances[_from] -= _value) that are not wrapped in SafeMath functions or require statements with overflow validation
    Affected if Any arithmetic operations on token balances lack overflow/underflow protection

You are affected if you hold or interact with the Bittelux (BTX) token and the deployed contract's transfer or transferFrom functions lack SafeMath library usage or explicit overflow/underflow checks on arithmetic operations

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement SafeMath library functions or add explicit overflow/underflow checks on all arithmetic operations in transfer functions. Consider upgrading to a audited token contract with proper integer handling.

Fix this in Bittelux Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,560
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,696.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13326 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2018-13326 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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