CVE-2018-13559
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 UTCT, 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 UTCT Ethereum token smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability that allows the contract owner to set any user's token balance to an arbitrary value without proper bounds checking.
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.
-
Verify UTCT token contract is in useCheck if your Ethereum wallet holds UTCT tokens, or if your application integrates with the UTCT token contract at address 0xfa0f2faa919b10aE49C4C0de90C7d1aD3A0c6D7d (or verify the contract address through official UTCT channels)Affected if You hold UTCT tokens or your system interacts with the UTCT token contract
-
Inspect mintToken function source codeIf the contract source code is verified on Etherscan or similar block explorers, locate the mintToken function and examine its implementation for integer overflow protectionAffected if The mintToken function lacks SafeMath library usage or other overflow protection mechanisms and contains logic that allows setting balances to arbitrary values
-
Check for unbounded balance modificationReview the mintToken function parameters - specifically look for whether the function accepts a 'value' or 'amount' parameter that can be set to any 256-bit integer without validationAffected if The function accepts an arbitrary value parameter that directly modifies account balances without upper bounds checking
-
Verify access control scopeExamine whether only the contract owner can call mintToken, and whether this function can be used to arbitrarily increase any user's balance beyond normal token supply limitsAffected if The contract owner can invoke mintToken to set any address balance to any arbitrary value without proportional token issuance controls
You are affected if you hold or interact with the UTCT token contract and the deployed contract's mintToken function allows unrestricted balance modifications without SafeMath or bounds checking.
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 mintToken function should be updated to include proper integer overflow/underflow protection (e.g., using SafeMath library) and access controls to prevent unauthorized balance modifications.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13559 — 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-2018-13559 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