REVIEW 2 cited by
Faster Fuzzing: Reinitialization with Deep Neural Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
We improve the performance of the American Fuzzy Lop (AFL) fuzz testing framework by using Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) models to reinitialize the system with novel seed files. We assess performance based on the temporal rate at which we produce novel and unseen code paths. We compare this approach to seed file generation from a random draw of bytes observed in the training seed files. The code path lengths and variations were not sufficiently diverse to fully replace AFL input generation. However, augmenting native AFL with these additional code paths demonstrated improvements over AFL alone. Specifically, experiments showed the GAN was faster and more effective than the LSTM and out-performed a random augmentation strategy, as measured by the number of unique code paths discovered. GAN helps AFL discover 14.23% more code paths than the random strategy in the same amount of CPU time, finds 6.16% more unique code paths, and finds paths that are on average 13.84% longer. Using GAN shows promise as a reinitialization strategy for AFL to help the fuzzer exercise deep paths in software.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Using quantum annealing to generate test cases for cyber-physical systems
Quantum annealing, applied to QUBO-encoded test-case mutation selection, matches classical heuristics in fault detection but runs in less wall-clock time on two Simulink CPS case studies.
-
A systematic review of fuzzing based on machine learning techniques
A review of 29 machine learning based fuzzing studies that organizes the field into six pipeline stages, but its favorable conclusion relies on best-case metric selection and inconsistent benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.