dbcve.org
EthercashApplication · Ethercash Project

CVE-2018-13482

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2018-07-09
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 mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for ETHERCASH (ETC), an Ethereum token, has an integer overflow that allows the owner of the contract to set the balance of an arbitrary user to any value.

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 confidence

The ETHERCASH (ETC) Ethereum token smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability in its mintToken function. This allows the contract owner to manipulate any user's token balance to arbitrary values due to unchecked arithmetic operations when updating balances.

MitigationReplace the vulnerable arithmetic operations in the mintToken function with SafeMath library functions (or use Solidity 0.8+ with built-in overflow checks) to prevent integer overflow. Verify the fix does not break legitimate token minting functionality.

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
EthercashApplication
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:3.0/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 checks

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

  1. Identify if you hold or have interacted with Ethercash (ETC) tokens
    Review your Ethereum wallet transactions and token holdings for any interaction with the Ethercash project contract address. Check block explorers for transfers of ETC tokens to your addresses.
    Affected if You have received, sent, or currently hold Ethercash (ETC) tokens from this specific smart contract.
  2. Verify if you are the contract owner
    Query the contract's owner role using the owner() function, or check if your deployer address matches the contract creator on the blockchain.
    Affected if Your address holds the owner role in the Ethercash contract, meaning you have mintToken privileges that could be exploited.
  3. Examine the mintToken function source code
    Locate the deployed contract bytecode on Etherscan or other block explorers, decompile if source is not verified, and inspect the mintToken function for arithmetic operations on balance variables.
    Affected if The mintToken function uses direct arithmetic operators (+, -, *, /) instead of SafeMath library functions for balance updates.
  4. Check Solidity compiler version used
    If source code is available, verify the pragma solidity version declaration at the top of the contract file.
    Affected if The contract is compiled with Solidity versions below 0.8.0, which lack built-in overflow checks.
  5. Review balance update operations in mintToken
    Locate the specific lines in mintToken where user balances are modified (e.g., balanceOf[user] += mintedAmount). Confirm whether these use SafeMath.add() or raw addition operators.
    Affected if Balance updates use raw arithmetic operators without SafeMath overflow protection.

You are affected if you hold Ethercash tokens from this contract, or if you are the contract owner and the mintToken function uses unchecked arithmetic for balance modifications.

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

Replace the vulnerable arithmetic operations in the mintToken function with SafeMath library functions (or use Solidity 0.8+ with built-in overflow checks) to prevent integer overflow. Verify the fix does not break legitimate token minting functionality.

Fix this in Ethercash Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
8.0 hours of engineering $1,390
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13482 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2018-13482 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