dbcve.org
DaddytokenApplication · Daddytoken Project

CVE-2018-13493

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 DaddyToken, 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

Integer overflow vulnerability in the mintToken function of the DaddyToken Ethereum smart contract allows the contract owner to manipulate user balances to arbitrary values due to lack of proper overflow/underflow validation when updating token balances.

MitigationImplement SafeMath library or explicit overflow/underflow checks (require statements) in the mintToken function before performing arithmetic operations on balance variables.

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
DaddytokenApplication
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 the deployed contract is DaddyToken
    Obtain the contract bytecode or source code from the blockchain explorer (Etherscan) or by decompiling the deployed contract. Verify the contract name, bytecode hash, or contract metadata matches the DaddyToken project.
    Affected if The contract is DaddyToken or a derivative thereof, as all versions are affected.
  2. Locate the mintToken function in the source code
    Search the contract source code for the function definition 'function mintToken' or 'mintToken('. Examine the function body to understand how token balances are updated.
    Affected if The mintToken function exists in the contract and performs arithmetic operations on balance variables.
  3. Verify SafeMath library usage
    Check if the contract imports SafeMath library (look for 'import "./SafeMath.sol"' or similar) and if the balance variables use SafeMath methods (e.g., 'balances[target].add(mintedAmount)' instead of direct addition with '+').
    Affected if SafeMath is NOT imported or is NOT used for arithmetic operations on balances within mintToken.
  4. Check for explicit overflow/underflow validation
    Examine the mintToken function for require statements or if-statements that validate balance variables before arithmetic (e.g., 'require(balances[target] + mintedAmount > balances[target])').
    Affected if No explicit overflow/underflow checks (require statements) are present before balance arithmetic in mintToken.
  5. Confirm balance update uses unchecked arithmetic
    Look for direct arithmetic operators (+, -, *, /) used on balance variables without SafeMath wrappers or validation, such as 'balances[target] += mintedAmount' or 'balances[target] = balances[target] + mintedAmount'.
    Affected if Direct arithmetic operators are used on balance variables without overflow protection.

If the contract is DaddyToken and the mintToken function performs direct arithmetic on balances without SafeMath or explicit require checks, the environment is affected by CVE-2018-13493.

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 or explicit overflow/underflow checks (require statements) in the mintToken function before performing arithmetic operations on balance variables.

Fix this in Daddytoken Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,080
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13493 — 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-2018-13493 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