CVE-2018-19833
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 owned function of a smart contract implementation for DDQ, an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function does not check the caller's identity.
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 DDQ ERC20 token smart contract has a missing access control check in its `owned` function. This function, intended to manage contract ownership, does not verify that the caller is the current owner before allowing ownership transfer. An attacker can call this function directly to assign themselves as the contract owner, gaining full administrative control over the token.
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:3.1/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 you hold or interact with the DDQ tokenCheck your wallet or transaction history for the DDQ token contract address. The token name is 'Ddq Project Ddq'. Verify the contract address matches the one listed in your records or on token tracking sites like Etherscan.Affected if You hold DDQ tokens or have transactions involving the DDQ token contract address.
-
Check the current contract ownerOn Etherscan or similar block explorer, navigate to the DDQ token contract and check the 'owner' field in the contract details, or call the 'owner()' function if it's a read-only function.Affected if The displayed owner address is not the expected original owner address you know or the owner appears to be a suspicious address you do not recognize.
-
Inspect the owned function for access controlView the contract source code on Etherscan (Contract tab) or decompile the bytecode. Locate the 'owned' or 'transferOwnership' function and check if it contains a require statement like 'require(msg.sender == owner)' at the beginning of the function.Affected if The owned function has no access control check - it executes the ownership transfer without verifying the caller is the current owner.
-
Review ownership change eventsOn Etherscan, check the contract's transaction history and filter for 'OwnershipTransferred' events. Look for any ownership transfer that was not initiated by the original owner address.Affected if There are OwnershipTransferred events from the zero address or from addresses other than the original owner, indicating exploitation.
You are affected if you hold DDQ tokens and the deployed contract's owned function lacks access control validation, or if the current owner is not the intended original owner.
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 dataDeploy a fixed version of the contract with proper access control (e.g., `require(msg.sender == owner)`) in the ownership function, then migrate all token holders to the new contract. Consider implementing a timelock or multisig for future ownership changes.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-19833 — 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-2018-19833 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