CVE-2018-13619
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 MicoinToken, 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 MicoinToken Ethereum smart contract contains an integer overflow vulnerability combined with improper access controls, allowing the contract owner to set any user's token balance to arbitrary values by exploiting the overflow condition.
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 MicoinToken contract deploymentSearch blockchain explorers or your contract registry for any deployed instances of contracts named 'MicoinToken', 'Micoin', or similar variantsAffected if A contract with the name MicoinToken or Micointoken is found on any blockchain network you control or use
-
Locate the mintToken function in contract sourceIf you have the contract source code, search for a function named 'mintToken' that accepts parameters for target address and token amountAffected if A mintToken function exists that allows the owner to modify a user's balance without proper overflow protection (no SafeMath and not using Solidity 0.8+)
-
Verify access control on balance modificationExamine the mintToken function to determine if only the contract owner can call it, and check if it directly sets balances without constraintsAffected if The function is callable only by the owner and directly assigns balance values allowing arbitrary modifications
-
Check for integer overflow protectionReview the contract for use of SafeMath library for arithmetic operations, or confirm Solidity compiler version is 0.8.0 or higher in the contract metadataAffected if No SafeMath library is imported and used, and the contract is compiled with Solidity below version 0.8.0
-
Inspect current owner permissionsIf you have read access to the contract, query the owner address and review whether any multi-sig or timelock constraints exist on owner actionsAffected if A single owner address has direct control over the mintToken function without additional safeguards
You are affected if you have deployed or interact with a MicoinToken contract containing a mintToken function that allows the owner to arbitrarily set user balances without SafeMath or Solidity 0.8+ 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 contract with a corrected version using SafeMath library or Solidity 0.8+ for overflow protection, remove the ability for the owner to directly set arbitrary balances, and migrate tokens to the new contract.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,536.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13619 — 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-2018-13619 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