CVE-2018-13521
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 PinkyToken, 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 confidenceThe PinkyToken smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability in the mintToken function that allows the contract owner to set any user's token balance to an arbitrary value. This flaw enables the owner to manipulate token supplies beyond normal integer limits, effectively granting unrestricted minting capabilities to the owner.
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.
-
Identify PinkyToken contract deploymentLocate the deployed PinkyToken contract in your environment and retrieve its source code or ABI. Check block explorers or your local contract registry for the contract address and verify it matches the PinkyToken project.Affected if The PinkyToken contract is deployed in your environment
-
Verify mintToken function existsInspect the contract source code for a function named 'mintToken' that accepts parameters allowing the owner to set arbitrary token balances for any address. Check function signature and access controls.Affected if The mintToken function is present and accessible to the contract owner
-
Check for integer overflow protectionExamine the contract code to determine whether SafeMath library functions are used for arithmetic operations, or whether the contract is compiled with Solidity version 0.8 or higher which includes built-in overflow checks.Affected if Neither SafeMath library is used nor Solidity 0.8+ compiler is employed, meaning raw arithmetic operations are vulnerable to overflow
-
Confirm owner access to balance manipulationReview the mintToken function logic to verify it allows the contract owner to directly modify any user's token balance without additional validation or constraints beyond owner-only access control.Affected if The function permits unrestricted balance modification by the owner
Your environment is affected if you have deployed the PinkyToken contract and the vulnerable mintToken function is accessible without proper overflow protection (no SafeMath and Solidity below 0.8).
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 or migrate to Solidity 0.8+ which includes built-in overflow checks. Implement additional access control validation to restrict minting privileges to legitimate paths.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13521 — 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-2018-13521 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