DatAFLow: Toward a Data-Flow-Guided Fuzzer

Coverage-guided greybox fuzzers rely on control-flow coverage feedback to explore a target program and uncover bugs. Compared to control-flow coverage, data-flow coverage offers a more fine-grained approximation of program behavior. Data-flow coverage captures behaviors not visible as control flow and should intuitively discover more (or different) bugs. Despite this advantage, fuzzers guided by data-flow coverage have received relatively little attention, appearing mainly in combination with heavyweight program analyses (e.g., taint analysis, symbolic execution). Unfortunately, these more accurate analyses incur a high run-time penalty, impeding fuzzer throughput. Lightweight data-flow alternatives to control-flow fuzzing remain unexplored. We present datAFLow, a greybox fuzzer guided by lightweight data-flow profiling. We also establish a framework for reasoning about data-flow coverage, allowing the computational cost of exploration to be balanced with precision. Using this framework, we extensively evaluate datAFLow across different precisions, comparing it against state-of-the-art fuzzers guided by control flow, taint analysis, and data flow. Our results suggest that the ubiquity of control-flow-guided fuzzers is well-founded. The high run-time costs of data-flow-guided fuzzing (similar to 10xhigher than control-flow-guided fuzzing) significantly reduces fuzzer iteration rates, adversely affecting bug discovery and coverage expansion. Despite this, datAFLow uncovered bugs that state-of-the-art control-flow-guided fuzzers (notably, AFL++) failed to find. This was because dataflow coverage revealed states in the target not visible under control-flow coverage. Thus, we encourage the community to continue exploring lightweight data-flow profiling; specifically, to lower run-time costs and to combine this profiling with control-flow coverage to maximize bug-finding potential.

About this result

This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.

2023
Journal paper

Abstract

Official source

About this result

Related concepts (22)

Related publications (31)

Dynamic program analysis

Dynamic program analysis is analysis of computer software that involves executing the program in question (as opposed to static program analysis, which does not). Dynamic program analysis includes familiar techniques from software engineering such as unit testing, debugging, and measuring code coverage, but also includes lesser-known techniques like program slicing and invariant inference. Dynamic program analysis is widely applied in security in the form of runtime memory error detection, fuzzing, dynamic symbolic execution, and taint tracking.

Code coverage

In software engineering, code coverage is a percentage measure of the degree to which the source code of a program is executed when a particular test suite is run. A program with high test coverage has more of its source code executed during testing, which suggests it has a lower chance of containing undetected software bugs compared to a program with low test coverage. Many different metrics can be used to calculate test coverage. Some of the most basic are the percentage of program subroutines and the percentage of program statements called during execution of the test suite.

Fuzzing

In programming and software development, fuzzing or fuzz testing is an automated software testing technique that involves providing invalid, unexpected, or random data as inputs to a computer program. The program is then monitored for exceptions such as crashes, failing built-in code assertions, or potential memory leaks. Typically, fuzzers are used to test programs that take structured inputs. This structure is specified, e.g., in a or protocol and distinguishes valid from invalid input.

The pursuit of software security and reliability hinges on the identification and elimination of software vulnerabilities, a challenge compounded by the vast and evolving complexity of modern systems. Fuzzing has emerged as an indispensable technique for b ...

EPFL2024

Arvin: Greybox Fuzzing Using Approximate Dynamic CFG Analysis

Mathias Josef Payer, Sirus Shahini

Fuzzing has emerged as the most broadly used testing technique to discover bugs. Effective fuzzers rely on coverage to prioritize inputs that exercise new program areas. Edge-based code coverage of the Program Under Test (PUT) is the most commonly used cov ...

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY2023

This Replicating Computational Report (RCR) describes (a) our datAFLow fuzzer and (b) how to replicate the results in "datAFLow: Toward a Data-Flow-Guided Fuzzer." Our primary artifact is the datAFLow fuzzer. Unlike traditional coverage-guided greybox fuzz ...

2023