Automatic Vulnerability Detection in Embedded Devices and Firmware
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of the internet of things (IoT), software-enabled inter-connected devices are of paramount importance. The embedded systems are very frequently used in both security and privacy-sensitive applications. However, the underlying software (a.k.a. firmware) very often suffers from a wide range of security vulnerabilities, mainly due to their outdated systems or reusing existing vulnerable libraries; which is evident by the surprising rise in the number of attacks against embedded systems. Therefore, to protect those embedded systems, detecting the presence of vulnerabilities in the large pool of embedded devices and their firmware plays a vital role. To this end, there exist several approaches to identify and trigger potential vulnerabilities within deployed embedded systems firmware. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art proposals, which detect vulnerabilities in embedded systems and firmware images by employing various analysis techniques, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, symbolic execution, and hybrid approaches. Furthermore, we perform both quantitative and qualitative comparisons among the surveyed approaches. Moreover, we devise taxonomies based on the applications of those approaches, the features used in the literature, and the type of the analysis. Finally, we identify the unresolved challenges and discuss possible future directions in this field of research.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".