EASYFLOW: Keep Ethereum Away From Overflow

While Ethereum smart contracts enabled a wide range of blockchain applications, they are extremely vulnerable to different forms of security attacks. Due to the fact that transactions to smart contracts commonly involve cryptocurrency transfer, any successful attacks can lead to money loss or even financial disorder. In this paper, we focus on the overflow attacks in Ethereum , mainly because they widely rooted in many smart contracts and comparatively easy to exploit. We have developed EASYFLOW , an overflow detector at Ethereum Virtual Machine level. The key insight behind EASYFLOW is a taint analysis based tracking technique to analyze the propagation of involved taints. Specifically, EASYFLOW can not only divide smart contracts into safe contracts, manifested overflows, well-protected overflows and potential overflows, but also automatically generate transactions to trigger potential overflows. In our preliminary evaluation, EASYFLOW managed to find potentially vulnerable Ethereum contracts with little runtime overhead.Comment: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings. IEEE Press, 201

Dynamic Information Flow Tracking on Multicores

Dynamic Information Flow Tracking (DIFT) is a promising technique for detecting software attacks. Due to the computationally intensive nature of the technique, prior efficient implementations [21, 6] rely on specialized hardware support whose only purpose is to enable DIFT. Alternatively, prior software implementations are either too slow [17, 15] resulting in execution time increases as much as four fold for SPEC integer programs or they are not transparent [31] requiring source code modifications. In this paper, we propose the use of chip multiprocessors (CMP) to perform DIFT transparently and efficiently. We spawn a helper thread that is scheduled on a separate core and is only responsible for performing information flow tracking operations. This entails the communication of registers and flags between the main and helper threads. We explore software (shared memory) and hardware (dedicated interconnect) approaches to enable this communication. Finally, we propose a novel application of the DIFT infrastructure where, in addition to the detection of the software attack, DIFT assists in the process of identifying the cause of the bug in the code that enabled the exploit in the first place. We conducted detailed simulations to evaluate the overhead for performing DIFT and found that to be 48 % for SPEC integer programs

IntRepair: Informed Repairing of Integer Overflows

Integer overflows have threatened software applications for decades. Thus, in this paper, we propose a novel technique to provide automatic repairs of integer overflows in C source code. Our technique, based on static symbolic execution, fuses detection, repair generation and validation. This technique is implemented in a prototype named IntRepair. We applied IntRepair to 2,052C programs (approx. 1 million lines of code) contained in SAMATE's Juliet test suite and 50 synthesized programs that range up to 20KLOC. Our experimental results show that IntRepair is able to effectively detect integer overflows and successfully repair them, while only increasing the source code (LOC) and binary (Kb) size by around 1%, respectively. Further, we present the results of a user study with 30 participants which shows that IntRepair repairs are more than 10x efficient as compared to manually generated code repairsComment: Accepted for publication at the IEEE TSE journal. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1710.0372

An automated approach to fix buffer overflows

Buffer overflows are one of the most common software vulnerabilities that occur when more data is inserted into a buffer than it can hold. Various manual and automated techniques for detecting and fixing specific types of buffer overflow vulnerability have been proposed, but the solution to fix Unicode buffer overflow has not been proposed yet. Public security vulnerability repository e.g., Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) holds useful articles about software security vulnerabilities. Mitigation strategies listed in CWE may be useful for fixing the specified software security vulnerabilities. This research contributes by developing a prototype that automatically fixes different types of buffer overflows by using the strategies suggested in CWE articles and existing research. A static analysis tool has been used to evaluate the performance of the developed prototype tools. The results suggest that the proposed approach can automatically fix buffer overflows without inducing errors

How Effective are Smart Contract Analysis Tools? Evaluating Smart Contract Static Analysis Tools Using Bug Injection

Security attacks targeting smart contracts have been on the rise, which have led to financial loss and erosion of trust. Therefore, it is important to enable developers to discover security vulnerabilities in smart contracts before deployment. A number of static analysis tools have been developed for finding security bugs in smart contracts. However, despite the numerous bug-finding tools, there is no systematic approach to evaluate the proposed tools and gauge their effectiveness. This paper proposes SolidiFI, an automated and systematic approach for evaluating smart contract static analysis tools. SolidiFI is based on injecting bugs (i.e., code defects) into all potential locations in a smart contract to introduce targeted security vulnerabilities. SolidiFI then checks the generated buggy contract using the static analysis tools, and identifies the bugs that the tools are unable to detect (false-negatives) along with identifying the bugs reported as false-positives. SolidiFI is used to evaluate six widely-used static analysis tools, namely, Oyente, Securify, Mythril, SmartCheck, Manticore and Slither, using a set of 50 contracts injected by 9369 distinct bugs. It finds several instances of bugs that are not detected by the evaluated tools despite their claims of being able to detect such bugs, and all the tools report many false positivesComment: ISSTA 202