CVE-2018-13708 in Order
Summary
by MITRE
The mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for Order (ETH) (Contract Name: BuyToken), 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.
Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 02/28/2020
The vulnerability identified as CVE-2018-13708 represents a critical integer overflow flaw within the mintToken function of the BuyToken smart contract implementation for Order (ETH) on the Ethereum blockchain. This vulnerability resides in the contract's token management system where the mintToken function fails to properly validate or constrain integer values during balance updates, creating a scenario where the contract owner can manipulate user balances arbitrarily. The flaw stems from insufficient input validation and lack of overflow protection mechanisms that are fundamental to secure smart contract development practices. Such vulnerabilities directly contravene established security principles outlined in the Ethereum Smart Contract Security Best Practices and can be classified under CWE-190, Integer Overflow or Wraparound, which specifically addresses issues where integer arithmetic operations produce results that exceed the maximum value representable by the data type. The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple balance manipulation as it fundamentally compromises the integrity of the token economy, potentially allowing malicious actors to create unlimited tokens or manipulate user holdings to gain unfair advantages in token-based systems. This vulnerability also aligns with ATT&CK technique T1059.001, Command and Scripting Interpreter, as it enables attackers to execute unauthorized operations through contract manipulation rather than traditional command execution methods. The flaw creates a persistent risk where the contract owner can set any user's balance to arbitrary values including zero, negative numbers, or extremely large values that could potentially overwhelm the contract's state management. This vulnerability directly undermines the trust model of decentralized applications and can lead to significant financial losses for users who hold tokens in affected contracts. The integer overflow occurs during the mintToken function execution where the contract fails to implement proper boundary checks or overflow detection mechanisms that would normally be expected in robust smart contract implementations. Such issues are particularly dangerous in token contracts where the balance of users is directly tied to their ability to transact, transfer, or utilize their holdings within the ecosystem. The vulnerability's exploitation requires minimal technical expertise and can be executed by anyone with access to the contract owner's private key, making it an attractive target for attackers seeking to manipulate token distributions. Security researchers have noted that this type of vulnerability often stems from inadequate testing of edge cases and insufficient implementation of defensive programming practices that are essential for smart contract security. The broader implications include potential system-wide instability in token-based applications where users trust the contract's integrity to maintain accurate balances and prevent unauthorized modifications. Mitigation strategies must include comprehensive input validation, proper integer overflow protection mechanisms, and rigorous testing of boundary conditions to prevent similar vulnerabilities from manifesting in future contract deployments. Organizations should implement formal verification processes and adhere to established security frameworks such as those recommended by the Ethereum Foundation's security guidelines to prevent such critical flaws in smart contract implementations. The vulnerability also highlights the importance of code reviews and third-party security audits in blockchain development environments where the immutable nature of deployed contracts makes post-deployment fixes extremely difficult and costly.