CVE-2018-13504
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 mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for MMCoin, 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 confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in the mintToken function of the MMCoin Ethereum token smart contract allows the contract owner to arbitrarily set any user's token balance to any value, enabling unauthorized balance manipulation.
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:3.1/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify you have deployed the MMCoin token contractQuery the blockchain for contracts you own that match the MMCoin token name/symbol, or review your deployed contract addresses and compare the contract name in the source codeAffected if Your deployed contract is the MMCoin token by Immcoin
-
Confirm the mintToken function exists in your deployed contractCheck the contract's ABI or source code for a function named mintToken that accepts parameters for target address and token amountAffected if The mintToken function is present in the contract
-
Identify if your contract uses SafeMath for arithmetic operationsReview the contract source code for 'using SafeMath' statements or library imports, and check if the mintToken function uses SafeMath methods (like add, mul) instead of native operators (+, *)Affected if The contract does not use SafeMath library and uses direct integer arithmetic in mintToken
-
Determine if you are the contract ownerQuery the contract for the owner role using the owner() function or check if your address matches the designated owner in the contract stateAffected if You are the contract owner and the vulnerable mintToken function is callable by you
-
Check for unexpected balance changes in transaction historyReview blockchain events and token transfer logs for mintToken calls that you did not authorize, or compare current balances to known baseline valuesAffected if Token balances have been modified through mintToken calls you did not initiate
You are affected if you have deployed the MMCoin token contract and it lacks SafeMath protection in the mintToken function, allowing integer overflow exploitation for unauthorized balance manipulation.
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 integer arithmetic with SafeMath library functions to prevent overflow, or implement explicit overflow checks; upgrade to a patched contract version or redeploy with corrected logic.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13504 — 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-2018-13504 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