REVIEW 1 cited by
Vulpedia: Detecting Vulnerable Ethereum Smart Contracts via Abstracted Vulnerability Signatures
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
read the original abstract
Recent years have seen smart contracts are getting increasingly popular in building trustworthy decentralized applications. Previous research has proposed static and dynamic techniques to detect vulnerabilities in smart contracts. These tools check vulnerable contracts against several predefined rules. However, the emerging new vulnerable types and programming skills to prevent possible vulnerabilities emerging lead to a large number of false positive and false negative reports of tools. To address this, we propose Vulpedia, which mines expressive vulnerability signatures from contracts. Vulpedia is based on the relaxed assumption that the owner of contract is not malicious. Specifically, we extract structural program features from vulnerable and benign contracts as vulnerability signatures, and construct a systematic detection method based on detection rules composed of vulnerability signatures. Compared with the rules defined by state-of-the-arts, our approach can extract more expressive rules to achieve better completeness (i.e., detection recall) and soundness (i.e., precision). We further evaluate Vulpedia with four baselines (i.e., Slither, Securify, SmartCheck and Oyente) on the testing dataset consisting of 17,770 contracts. The experiment results show that Vulpedia achieves best performance of precision on 4 types of vulnerabilities and leading recall on 3 types of vulnerabilities meanwhile exhibiting the great efficiency performance.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Exposing Hidden Backdoors in NFT Smart Contracts: A Static Security Analysis of Rug Pull Patterns
A static analysis of nearly 50,000 Ethereum NFT contracts finds that 22.6% contain multiple rug-pull-related code patterns, though the study does not validate these flags against confirmed scams.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.