Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

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

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

arxiv 2005.11613 v1 pith:OAYLNZOP submitted 2020-05-23 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords toolsbugssmartanalysiscontractstaticcontractssecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

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 positives

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Enhancing Reliability of Symbolic Execution Tools for Smart Contract Analysis through Rule-Based False Positive Reduction

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Adding six rule-based filters to Mythril cut false positives by 50.0% on clean contracts and 89.2% on vulnerable contracts in the Gigahorse benchmark, while keeping true positives roughly unchanged.

Pith tools