CVE-2018-13509
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 IamRich, 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 · moderate confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in the mintToken function of the IamRich Ethereum smart contract enables the contract owner to set arbitrary token balances for any user due to missing overflow/underflow validation on arithmetic operations.
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.
-
Locate the IamRich contract in your environmentSearch your contract deployment records or blockchain explorers for contracts named 'IamRich' or 'Iamrich'. Identify the deployed contract address.Affected if No IamRich contract is found in your environment, you are not affected.
-
Verify the contract source code uses SafeMathRetrieve the contract source code (from Etherscan verification or your deployment files) and search for 'SafeMath' library imports or usage in arithmetic operations.Affected if The contract does NOT use SafeMath or any overflow-checked arithmetic, you are likely affected.
-
Inspect the mintToken function for overflow validationLocate the mintToken function in the source code. Examine the token balance assignment (e.g., balances[to] = ...) and check if it uses SafeMath methods (like add) or native Solidity 0.8+ overflow checks.Affected if The mintToken function uses plain arithmetic operators (+, -, *, /) without SafeMath or Solidity 0.8+, the vulnerability is present.
-
Check contract owner privileges for balance manipulationReview the mintToken function to confirm it allows the contract owner to arbitrarily increase any user's token balance without constraints.Affected if The mintToken function permits the owner to set arbitrary balances with no upper limit, exploitation is possible.
You are affected if the IamRich contract is deployed in your environment and its mintToken function lacks SafeMath or overflow-checked arithmetic, allowing the owner to manipulate balances beyond uint256 limits.
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 unsafe arithmetic operations with SafeMath library or equivalent overflow-checked operations, or deploy a fixed contract version and migrate affected balances.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13509 — 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-2018-13509 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