Engineering a Better Fuzzer with Synergically Integrated Optimizations
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
State-of-the-art fuzzers implement various optimizations to enhance their performance. As the optimizations reside in different stages such as input seed selection and mutation, it is tempting to combine the optimizations in different stages. However, our initial attempts demonstrate that naive combination actually worsens the performance, which explains that most optimizations are still isolated by stages and metrics. In this paper, we present InteFuzz, the first framework that synergically integrates multiple fuzzing optimizations. We analyze the root cause for performance degradation in naive combination, and discover optimizations conflict in coverage criteria and optimization granularity. To resolve the conflicts, we propose a novel priority-based scheduling mechanism. The dynamic integration considers both branch-based and block-based coverage feedbacks that are used by most fuzzing optimizations. In our evaluation, we extract four optimizations from popular fuzzers such as AFLFast and FairFuzz and compare InteFuzz against naive combinations. The evaluation results show that InteFuzz outperforms the naive combination by 29% and 26% in path-and branch-coverage. Additionally, InteFuzz triggers 222 more unique crashes, and discovers 33 zero-day vulnerabilities in real-world projects with 12 registered as CVEs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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