An integer overflow in the mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for Doftcoin Token, an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows the owner to cause unexpected financial losses.

An integer overflow in the transfer function of a smart contract implementation for Lancer Token, an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows the owner to cause unexpected financial losses between two large accounts during a transaction.

An issue was discovered in function addMeByRC in the smart contract implementation for RC, an Ethereum token, allows attackers to transfer an arbitrary amount of tokens to an arbitrary address.

Integer overflow vulnerability in payable function of a smart contract implementation for an Ethereum token, as demonstrated by the smart contract implemented at address 0xB49E984A83d7A638E7F2889fc8328952BA951AbE, an implementation for MillionCoin (MON).

The sellTokenForLRC function in the vault protocol in the smart contract implementation for Loopring (LRC), an Ethereum token, lacks access control for fee swapping and thus allows price manipulation.

The breed function in the smart contract implementation for Farm in Seal Finance (Seal), an Ethereum token, lacks access control and thus allows price manipulation, as exploited in the wild in December 2020 and January 2021.

The _deposit function in the smart contract implementation for Stable Yield Credit (yCREDIT), an Ethereum token, has certain incorrect calculations. An attacker can obtain more yCREDIT tokens than they should.

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for MORPH Token through 2019-06-05, an Ethereum token. A typo in the constructor of the Owned contract (which is inherited by MORPH Token) allows attackers to acquire contract ownership. A new owner can subsequently obtain MORPH Tokens for free and can perform a DoS attack.

A typo exists in the constructor of a smart contract implementation for EAI through 2019-06-05, an Ethereum token. This vulnerability could be used by an attacker to acquire EAI tokens for free.

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for AIRDROPX BORN through 2019-05-29, an Ethereum token. The name of the constructor has a typo (wrong case: XBornID versus XBORNID) that allows an attacker to change the owner of the contract and obtain cryptocurrency for free.

An exploitable out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in libevm (Ethereum Virtual Machine) of CPP-Ethereum. A specially crafted smart contract code can cause an out-of-bounds read which can subsequently trigger an out-of-bounds write resulting in remote code execution. An attacker can create/send malicious smart contract to trigger this vulnerability.

The quaker function of a smart contract implementation for BOMBBA (BOMB), an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function does not check the caller's identity.

The 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.

The NETM() function of a smart contract implementation for NewIntelTechMedia (NETM), an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function does not check the caller's identity.

The ToOwner() function of a smart contract implementation for Cryptbond Network (CBN), an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function does not check the caller's identity.

The UBSexToken() function of a smart contract implementation for Business Alliance Financial Circle (BAFC), an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function is public (by default) and does not check the caller's identity.

The doAirdrop function of a smart contract implementation for Primeo (PEO), an Ethereum token, does not check the numerical relationship between the amount of the air drop and the token's total supply, which lets the owner of the contract issue an arbitrary amount of currency. (Increasing the total supply by using 'doAirdrop' ignores the hard cap written in the contract and devalues the token.)

An Integer overflow vulnerability exists in the batchTransfer function of a smart contract implementation for CryptoBotsBattle (CBTB), an Ethereum token. This vulnerability could be used by an attacker to create an arbitrary amount of tokens for any user.

The determineWinner function of a smart contract implementation for HashHeroes Tiles, an Ethereum game, uses a certain blockhash value in an attempt to generate a random number for the case where NUM_TILES equals the number of people who purchased a tile, which allows an attacker to control the awarding of the prize by being the last person to purchase a tile.

A gambling smart contract implementation for RuletkaIo, an Ethereum gambling game, generates a random value that is predictable by an external contract call. The developer wrote a random() function that uses a block timestamp and block hash from the Ethereum blockchain. This can be predicted by writing the same random function code in an exploit contract to determine the deadSeat value.