SmartScan: An approach to detect Denial of Service Vulnerability in Ethereum Smart Contracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology's (BT) Ethereum Smart Contracts allows programmable transactions that involve the transfer of monetary assets among peers on a BT network independent of a central authorizing agency. Ethereum Smart Contracts are programs that are deployed as decentralized applications, having the building blocks of the blockchain consensus protocol. This technology enables consumers to make agreements in a transparent and conflict-free environment. However, the security vulnerabilities within these smart contracts are a potential threat to the applications and their consumers and have shown in the past to cause huge financial losses. In this paper, we propose a framework that combines static and dynamic analysis to detect Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability due to an unexpected revert in Ethereum Smart Contracts. Our framework, SmartScan, statically scans smart contracts under test (SCUTs) to identify patterns that are potentially vulnerable in these SCUTs and then uses dynamic analysis to precisely confirm their exploitability of the DoS-Unexpected Revert vulnerability, thus achieving increased performance and more precise results. We evaluated SmartScan on a set of 500 smart contracts collected from the Etherscan. Our approach shows an improvement in precision and recall when compared to available state of the art techniques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".