CVE-2018-13576
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 Escut (ESCT) (Contract Name: JuntsPerCreixer), 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 JuntsPerCreixer Escut (ESCT) token smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability in its mintToken function. This allows the contract owner to manipulate the balance of any user to arbitrary values, potentially enabling unauthorized token creation or theft of tokens from other holders.
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 deployed ESCT token contractSearch for the JuntsPerCreixer Escut (ESCT) token on blockchain explorers like Etherscan, using keywords 'ESCT' or 'JuntsPerCreixer'. Identify the contract address from token listings or official sources.Affected if No deployed contract address can be found (not affected in that case)
-
Verify if mintToken function existsIf the contract source code is verified on the block explorer, search for 'function mintToken' or 'mint' within the source code. Alternatively, use a web3 library or block explorer interface to check if the function selector 0x40c1a064 exists as a callable function.Affected if The mintToken or similar minting function exists in the deployed contract code
-
Check for SafeMath library usageExamine the contract source code for 'using SafeMath' statements or import statements for SafeMath library. Search for .add(), .sub(), .mul() calls versus native +, -, * operators.Affected if The contract uses native arithmetic operators (+, -, *) instead of SafeMath library functions for token amount calculations in minting
-
Confirm owner-only access to mintingReview the function visibility modifiers on mintToken. Look for 'onlyOwner' or similar access control. Also check if any balance manipulation parameters exist in the function (e.g., target accounts and amounts as separate parameters).Affected if mintToken is callable by the contract owner and accepts arbitrary target addresses and token amounts without overflow checks
You are affected if you hold ESCT tokens from a deployed contract where the owner can call a mintToken function using native arithmetic operations to set arbitrary balances without SafeMath overflow protection.
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 the vulnerable mintToken function with a version using SafeMath library for arithmetic operations, or migrate to Solidity 0.8+ which includes built-in overflow checks. If the contract is already deployed, plan for a token migration to a patched contract.
- 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-2018-13576 — 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-2018-13576 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