CVE-2018-13579
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 ForeverCoin, 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 ForeverCoin Ethereum token contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability. This allows the contract owner to manipulate the balance of any user to arbitrary values by exploiting the overflow condition in the token minting logic.
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 ForeverCoin contractSearch your blockchain explorer or contract deployment records for the ForeverCoin token contract address. Check block explorers like Etherscan for contracts named 'Forevercoin' or 'FOREVER'.Affected if The ForeverCoin contract is deployed in your environment
-
Obtain the contract source codeLook for the source code on Etherscan (if verified) or in your project's contract repository. Identify the mintToken function and examine its implementation.Affected if The source code contains a mintToken function with arithmetic operations on token balances
-
Check for SafeMath usageInspect the contract for 'using SafeMath for uint256' statements or OpenZeppelin SafeMath library imports. Search for '.add()', '.sub()', '.mul()' method calls in the minting logic.Affected if The contract does NOT use SafeMath library for arithmetic operations in the mintToken function
-
Verify the overflow-prone patternExamine the mintToken function for direct arithmetic operations (e.g., 'balanceOf[owner] + mintedAmount') without overflow checks. Look for lines that update balances using standard operators like '+' instead of SafeMath methods.Affected if The mintToken function uses direct arithmetic operators (+) on balances without SafeMath protection
Your environment is affected if the ForeverCoin contract is deployed and its mintToken function performs balance arithmetic without SafeMath overflow protection, allowing the contract owner to manipulate balances through integer overflow.
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 safe math libraries (e.g., OpenZeppelin's SafeMath) to prevent integer overflows, and consider upgrading to a audited contract implementation.
- 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-2018-13579 — 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-2018-13579 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