MPro: Combining Static and Symbolic Analysis for Scalable Testing of Smart Contract
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
Smart contracts are executable programs that enable the building of a programmable trust mechanism between multiple entities without the need of a trusted third-party. At the time of this writing, there were over 10 million smart contracts deployed on the Ethereum networks and this number continues to grow at a rapid pace. Smart contracts are often written in a Turing-complete programming language called Solidity, which is not easy to audit for subtle errors. Further, since smart contracts are immutable, errors have led to attacks resulting in losses of cryptocurrency worth 100s of millions of USD and reputational damage. Unfortunately, manual security analyses do not scale with size and number of smart contracts. Automated and scalable mechanisms are essential if smart contracts are to gain mainstream acceptance. Researchers have developed several security scanners in the past couple of years. However, many of these analyzer either do not scale well, or if they do, produce many false positives. This issue is exacerbated when bugs are triggered only after a series of interactions with the functions of the contract-under-test. A depth-n vulnerability, refers to a vulnerability that requires invoking a specific sequence of n functions to trigger. Depth-n vulnerabilities are time-consuming to detect by existing automated analyzers, because of the combinatorial explosion of sequences of functions that could be executed on smart contracts. In this paper, we present a technique to analyze depth-n vulnerabilities in an efficient and scalable way by combining symbolic execution and data dependency analysis. A significant advantage of combining symbolic with static analysis is that it scales much better than symbolic alone and does not have the problem of false positive that static analysis tools typically have. We have implemented our technique in a tool called MPro, a scalable and automated smart contract analyzer based on the existing symbolic analysis tool Mythril-Classic and the static analysis tool Slither. We analyzed 100 randomly chosen smart contracts on MPro and our evaluation shows that MPro is about n-times faster than Mythril-Classic for detecting depth-n vulnerabilities, while preserving all the detection capabilities of Mythril-Classic.
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 | 0.000 | 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