CVE-2018-13601
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 GalacticX, 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 confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in the mintToken function of the GalacticX Ethereum smart contract allows the contract owner to arbitrarily set any user's token balance to any value, effectively enabling unauthorized balance manipulation.
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 the deployed contractQuery the contract at its address using a block explorer (Etherscan) or blockchain tooling to retrieve the contract name and verify it is the GalacticX token contractAffected if The deployed contract is GalacticX or an identical copy of its token contract
-
Verify mintToken function existsCheck the contract's function signatures or source code to confirm the mintToken function is present and callable by the ownerAffected if The mintToken function exists in the contract and is accessible to the contract owner
-
Check for SafeMath library usageReview the contract source code and look for SafeMath library imports or usage in arithmetic operations within the mintToken functionAffected if SafeMath library is not used for arithmetic operations in mintToken, leaving integer overflow unchecked
-
Check Solidity compiler versionRetrieve the contract's metadata or source and identify the Solidity compiler version pragmaAffected if The contract was compiled with Solidity version below 0.8.0 (which lacks built-in overflow checks)
-
Confirm owner privilege in mintTokenAnalyze the mintToken function to verify it allows the owner to directly set token balances without constraintsAffected if The mintToken function permits the owner to set arbitrary balance values without internal limits or safeguards
If the deployed contract is GalacticX with a mintToken function that lacks SafeMath or compiled with Solidity below 0.8, the environment is vulnerable to owner-controlled integer overflow manipulation of 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 dataReplace standard arithmetic operations in mintToken with SafeMath library functions or upgrade to Solidity 0.8+ which includes built-in overflow checking to prevent arithmetic vulnerabilities.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13601 — 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-2018-13601 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