高级检索
    李航宇, 方浩然, 曲彦文, 郭帆. ADFuzz:使用异常检测筛选低频路径高效模糊测试[J]. 计算机研究与发展, 2023, 60(8): 1912-1924. DOI: 10.7544/issn1000-1239.202111238
    引用本文: 李航宇, 方浩然, 曲彦文, 郭帆. ADFuzz:使用异常检测筛选低频路径高效模糊测试[J]. 计算机研究与发展, 2023, 60(8): 1912-1924. DOI: 10.7544/issn1000-1239.202111238
    Li Hangyu, Fang Haoran, Qu Yanwen, Guo Fan. ADFuzz: Using Anomaly Detection to Filter Rare Paths for Efficient Fuzzing[J]. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 2023, 60(8): 1912-1924. DOI: 10.7544/issn1000-1239.202111238
    Citation: Li Hangyu, Fang Haoran, Qu Yanwen, Guo Fan. ADFuzz: Using Anomaly Detection to Filter Rare Paths for Efficient Fuzzing[J]. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 2023, 60(8): 1912-1924. DOI: 10.7544/issn1000-1239.202111238

    ADFuzz:使用异常检测筛选低频路径高效模糊测试

    ADFuzz: Using Anomaly Detection to Filter Rare Paths for Efficient Fuzzing

    • 摘要: 基于覆盖率引导的模糊测试(Fuzzing)是当前最有效的漏洞自动挖掘技术. 目前大部分的模糊测试工具对于新产生的测试用例实施全追踪策略. 但是随着时间的流逝,模糊工具生成的测试用例都集中在程序的高频路径,使能够产生新覆盖的测试用例远少于已生成测试用例的总数,以至于全追踪策略花费了大量无意义的时间成本和运行开销. 因此提出基于异常检测模型的模糊测试工具ADFuzz,筛选低频路径以减少高频路径的执行次数,从而加速模糊测试,持续引导模糊测试朝着低频路径方向变异运行,并扩大程序覆盖. 通过ADFuzz,AFL,Untracer在12个真实程序上运行24 h的实验结果显示,相比AFL,ADFuzz平均速度提升23.8%,平均覆盖率增加11.78%,最高增加25.8%;相比Untracer,ADFuzz平均速度降低较少,但是漏洞数量和覆盖率都有较大提升.

       

      Abstract: Coverage guided Fuzzing is currently the most effective technology for automatic discovering vulnerabilities in a program. At present, most popular Fuzzing tools implement a full tracking strategy for newly generated test cases. But over time, most of them always focus on the highly frequent paths of the program and are unable to generate any new coverage. As a result, the strategy costs a lot of meaningless time and running overhead. In this paper, we propose a new tool called ADFuzz based on an anomaly detection model. Firstly, ADFuzz filters out rare paths to extremely reduce the number of test cases on frequent paths so as to speed up Fuzzing. Then, it constantly guides Fuzzing to mutate towards the targets of rare paths in order to generate new coverage. ADFuzz are tested on 12 real programs for 24 hours running with the same configuration as to AFL and Untracer. Compared with AFL, ADFuzz is 23.8% faster on average, averagely increases 11.78% and raises 25.8% at most on the percentage of coverage. Compared with Untracer, ADFuzzer makes much improvement on the number of crashes and the percentage of coverage while it has almost the same average speed.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回