Human-Controlled Fuzzing With AFL

Fuzzing techniques are applied to reveal different types of bugs and vulnerabilities. American Fuzzy Lop (AFL) is a free most popular software fuzzer used by many other fuzzing frameworks. AFL supports autonomous mode of operation that uses the previous step output into the next step, as a result fuzzer spends a lot of time analyzing minor code sections. By making fuzzing process more focused and human controlled security expert can save time and find more bugs in less time. We designed a new module that can fuzz only the specified functions. As a result, the chosen ones will be inspected more meticulously by a fuzzer, without wasting the time on inspecting minor code sections. The module provides API so that an expert can change which code functions need work in runtime. The module has been integrated with AFL and successfully responds to the challenge

Improving Function Coverage with Munch: A Hybrid Fuzzing and Directed Symbolic Execution Approach

Fuzzing and symbolic execution are popular techniques for finding vulnerabilities and generating test-cases for programs. Fuzzing, a blackbox method that mutates seed input values, is generally incapable of generating diverse inputs that exercise all paths in the program. Due to the path-explosion problem and dependence on SMT solvers, symbolic execution may also not achieve high path coverage. A hybrid technique involving fuzzing and symbolic execution may achieve better function coverage than fuzzing or symbolic execution alone. In this paper, we present Munch, an open source framework implementing two hybrid techniques based on fuzzing and symbolic execution. We empirically show using nine large open-source programs that overall, Munch achieves higher (in-depth) function coverage than symbolic execution or fuzzing alone. Using metrics based on total analyses time and number of queries issued to the SMT solver, we also show that Munch is more efficient at achieving better function coverage.Comment: To appear at 33rd ACM/SIGAPP Symposium On Applied Computing (SAC). To be held from 9th to 13th April, 201

The Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives of Directed Greybox Fuzzing

Most greybox fuzzing tools are coverage-guided as code coverage is strongly correlated with bug coverage. However, since most covered codes may not contain bugs, blindly extending code coverage is less efficient, especially for corner cases. Unlike coverage-guided greybox fuzzers who extend code coverage in an undirected manner, a directed greybox fuzzer spends most of its time allocation on reaching specific targets (e.g., the bug-prone zone) without wasting resources stressing unrelated parts. Thus, directed greybox fuzzing (DGF) is particularly suitable for scenarios such as patch testing, bug reproduction, and specialist bug hunting. This paper studies DGF from a broader view, which takes into account not only the location-directed type that targets specific code parts, but also the behaviour-directed type that aims to expose abnormal program behaviours. Herein, the first in-depth study of DGF is made based on the investigation of 32 state-of-the-art fuzzers (78% were published after 2019) that are closely related to DGF. A thorough assessment of the collected tools is conducted so as to systemise recent progress in this field. Finally, it summarises the challenges and provides perspectives for future research.Comment: 16 pages, 4 figure