CVE-2018-13545
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 HashShield, 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 confidenceThe mintToken function in the HashShield Ethereum token smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability that allows the contract owner to manipulate arbitrary user balances to any value, potentially enabling unauthorized minting or theft of tokens.
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 HashShield contract deploymentSearch your deployed smart contracts for the HashShield token (check your wallet, DApp, or blockchain explorer for contracts named 'HashShield' or 'Hashshield'). Verify the contract address if known.Affected if You have deployed or actively interact with a HashShield token contract on any Ethereum network (mainnet, testnet, or private).
-
Confirm ownership of the contractUse a blockchain explorer or web3 interface to call the 'owner' function on the HashShield contract, or check if you hold the private key associated with the deployer address.Affected if You are the owner (or hold the owner keys) of a deployed HashShield contract.
-
Inspect the mintToken function for integer overflow vulnerabilityRetrieve the contract source code from Etherscan (if verified) or your codebase. Locate the mintToken function and examine its arithmetic operations on balances and totalSupply. Check if it uses SafeMath library functions (add, sub, mul) for these operations.Affected if The mintToken function performs arithmetic operations (addition, multiplication) on balances or totalSupply WITHOUT using SafeMath or equivalent overflow checks.
-
Verify the vulnerability is exploitableExamine the mintToken function visibility and access control. Confirm it can be called by the owner (typically 'onlyOwner' modifier) and that it directly modifies user balances through addition without bounds checking.Affected if The mintToken function is callable by the owner and modifies balances/totalSupply through unchecked arithmetic operations.
You are affected if you have deployed the HashShield contract and the mintToken function exists without SafeMath overflow protection, allowing the owner to arbitrarily manipulate token balances.
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 dataThe vulnerable mintToken function should be rewritten with proper integer overflow checks (using SafeMath or similar libraries), and the contract should be upgraded to a patched version through the standard Ethereum upgrade mechanism.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13545 — 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-2018-13545 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