CVE-2018-13622
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 ObjectToken (OBJ), 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 ObjectToken (OBJ) Ethereum smart contract allows the contract owner to set arbitrary token balances for any user due to lack of proper bounds checking on integer arithmetic.
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 if your contract is ObjectTokenLocate the contract source code or deployed address. Verify the contract name is 'ObjectToken' or 'Objecttoken' from the Objectledger project.Affected if Your contract is the ObjectToken smart contract from Objectledger
-
Locate the mintToken functionSearch the contract source code for a function named 'mintToken' or 'mint'. This function is responsible for creating new tokens.Affected if Your contract contains a mintToken function that modifies user balances
-
Check for SafeMath library usage in mintTokenInspect the mintToken function body. Look for library calls like 'add()', 'sub()', 'mul()' from SafeMath, or equivalent overflow-safe arithmetic operations.Affected if The mintToken function does NOT use SafeMath or any overflow-safe arithmetic library for balance calculations
-
Verify bounds validation on balance modificationsExamine how the function handles balance updates. Look for explicit checks that prevent balances from exceeding maximum values or becoming negative (e.g., require statements or if-checks before assignment).Affected if The mintToken function lacks explicit bounds or range validation before setting token balances
-
Confirm the vulnerability is exploitableIf mintToken allows the contract owner to directly assign any balance value without overflow checks or upper limits, the integer overflow vulnerability is present.Affected if The owner can set arbitrary balance values through mintToken without SafeMath protection or bounds checking
Your environment is affected if you are running or have deployed the ObjectToken contract and its mintToken function lacks SafeMath library usage and explicit bounds validation on balance modifications.
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 dataImplement SafeMath library or equivalent overflow-safe arithmetic operations and add explicit bounds validation on balance modifications in the mintToken function.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $5,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13622 — 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-2018-13622 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