Classification of Static Analysis-Based Buffer Overflow Detectors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buffer overflow is one of the most dangerous exploitable vulnerabilities in released software or programs. Many approaches are applied to mitigate buffer overflow (BOF) vulnerabilities such as testing and monitoring. However, BOF vulnerabilities are discovered in programs frequently which might be exploited to crash programs and execute arbitrary injected code. Static analysis is a popular approach for detecting BOF vulnerabilities before releasing programs. Many static analysis-based approaches are currently used in practice. However, there is no detailed classification of these approaches to understand their common characteristics, objectives, and limitations. In this paper, we classify static analysis-based BOF vulnerability detection approaches based on six features: inference technique, analysis sensitivity, analysis granularity, soundness, completeness, and language. We then classify static inference techniques into four types: tainted data flow, constraint, annotation, and string pattern matching. Moreover, we compare the approaches in terms of effectiveness, scalability, and required manual effort. The classification will enable researchers to differentiate among existing analysis approaches. We develop some guidelines to help in choosing approaches and building tools suitable for practitioners need.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it