CVE-2018-13615
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 MJCToken, 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 in the mintToken function of MJCToken allows the contract owner to set any user's token balance to an arbitrary value due to unchecked arithmetic operations when minting new 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 the deployed contractQuery the contract's metadata or source code on the blockchain (e.g., via Etherscan, Blockscout) to confirm it is MJCToken by checking the contract name and source filesAffected if The contract is confirmed to be MJCToken from the Mjctoken project
-
Check the Solidity compiler versionInspect the source code metadata or the deployed bytecode to determine which Solidity compiler version was used (look for 'pragma solidity' directive in source)Affected if Compiler version is below 0.8.0 (overflow checks are not enforced by default in versions prior to 0.8)
-
Verify SafeMath library usage in mintTokenLocate the mintToken function in the source code and check whether SafeMath library (SafeMath.sol or OpenZeppelin) is imported and applied to arithmetic operations within the functionAffected if SafeMath is NOT imported or NOT used for arithmetic operations in mintToken, leaving arithmetic unchecked
-
Examine the mintToken function for unchecked operationsReview the mintToken function code to see if addition operations (e.g., balances[to] += tokenAmount) are performed without SafeMath wrappers or explicit overflow checksAffected if The function contains unchecked arithmetic operations that could overflow
-
Confirm owner-only access to mintTokenCheck if the mintToken function has the 'onlyOwner' or similar access control modifier, allowing the contract owner to call itAffected if The function is callable by the contract owner without additional constraints
If the deployed contract is MJCToken, uses Solidity below 0.8.0, does not use SafeMath in the mintToken function, and allows the owner to call mintToken with arbitrary values, then the environment is affected by this integer overflow vulnerability.
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 with SafeMath library or Solidity 0.8+ built-in overflow checks, and review whether owner-only balance manipulation functionality is intended or represents a backdoor.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13615 — 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-2018-13615 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