A Survey of Symbolic Execution Techniques

Many security and software testing applications require checking whether certain properties of a program hold for any possible usage scenario. For instance, a tool for identifying software vulnerabilities may need to rule out the existence of any backdoor to bypass a program's authentication. One approach would be to test the program using different, possibly random inputs. As the backdoor may only be hit for very specific program workloads, automated exploration of the space of possible inputs is of the essence. Symbolic execution provides an elegant solution to the problem, by systematically exploring many possible execution paths at the same time without necessarily requiring concrete inputs. Rather than taking on fully specified input values, the technique abstractly represents them as symbols, resorting to constraint solvers to construct actual instances that would cause property violations. Symbolic execution has been incubated in dozens of tools developed over the last four decades, leading to major practical breakthroughs in a number of prominent software reliability applications. The goal of this survey is to provide an overview of the main ideas, challenges, and solutions developed in the area, distilling them for a broad audience. The present survey has been accepted for publication at ACM Computing Surveys. If you are considering citing this survey, we would appreciate if you could use the following BibTeX entry: http://goo.gl/Hf5FvcComment: This is the authors pre-print copy. If you are considering citing this survey, we would appreciate if you could use the following BibTeX entry: http://goo.gl/Hf5Fv

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

Targeted Greybox Fuzzing with Static Lookahead Analysis

Automatic test generation typically aims to generate inputs that explore new paths in the program under test in order to find bugs. Existing work has, therefore, focused on guiding the exploration toward program parts that are more likely to contain bugs by using an offline static analysis. In this paper, we introduce a novel technique for targeted greybox fuzzing using an online static analysis that guides the fuzzer toward a set of target locations, for instance, located in recently modified parts of the program. This is achieved by first semantically analyzing each program path that is explored by an input in the fuzzer's test suite. The results of this analysis are then used to control the fuzzer's specialized power schedule, which determines how often to fuzz inputs from the test suite. We implemented our technique by extending a state-of-the-art, industrial fuzzer for Ethereum smart contracts and evaluate its effectiveness on 27 real-world benchmarks. Using an online analysis is particularly suitable for the domain of smart contracts since it does not require any code instrumentation---instrumentation to contracts changes their semantics. Our experiments show that targeted fuzzing significantly outperforms standard greybox fuzzing for reaching 83% of the challenging target locations (up to 14x of median speed-up)