MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167924718 · doi:10.1109/compsac.2008.123

Mutation-Based Testing of Buffer Overflow Vulnerabilities

2008· article· en· W2167924718 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuffer overflowComputer scienceVulnerability (computing)Secure codingFuzz testingVulnerability managementSet (abstract data type)SoftwareVulnerability assessmentComputer securitySoftware security assuranceProgramming languageInformation security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buffer overflow (BOF) is one of the major vulnerabilities that leads to non-secure software. Testing an implementation for BOF vulnerabilities is challenging as the underlying reasons of buffer overflow vary widely. Moreover, the existing vulnerability testing approaches do not address the issue of generating adequate test data sets for testing BOF vulnerabilities. In this work, we apply the idea of mutation-based testing technique to generate adequate test data set for BOF vulnerabilities. Our work addresses those BOF vulnerabilities, which are related to an implementation language and its associated libraries. We apply the concept for ANSI C language and its associated libraries. We propose 12 mutation operators to force the generation of adequate test data set for BOF vulnerabilities. The proposed operators are validated by using four open source programs. The results indicate that the proposed operators are effective for testing BOF vulnerabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207