Finding Counterexamples of Temporal Logic properties in Software Implementations via Greybox Fuzzing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software model checking is a verification technique which is widely used for checking temporal properties of software systems. Even though it is a property verification technique, its common usage in practice is in bug finding, that is, finding violations of temporal properties. Motivated by this observation and leveraging the recent progress in fuzzing, we build a greybox fuzzing framework to find violations of Linear-time Temporal Logic (LTL) properties. Our framework takes as input a sequential program written in C/C++, and an LTL property. It finds violations, or counterexample traces, of the LTL property in stateful software systems; however, it does not achieve verification. Our work substantially extends directed greybox fuzzing to witness arbitrarily complex event orderings. We note that existing directed greybox fuzzing approaches are limited to witnessing reaching a location or witnessing simple event orderings like use-after-free. At the same time, compared to model checkers, our approach finds the counterexamples faster, thereby finding more counterexamples within a given time budget. Our LTL-Fuzzer tool, built on top of the AFL fuzzer, is shown to be effective in detecting bugs in well-known protocol implementations, such as OpenSSL and Telnet. We use LTL-Fuzzer to reproduce known vulnerabilities (CVEs), to find 15 zero-day bugs by checking properties extracted from RFCs (for which 10 CVEs have been assigned), and to find violations of both safety as well as liveness properties in real-world protocol implementations. Our work represents a practical advance over software model checkers -- while simultaneously representing a conceptual advance over existing greybox fuzzers. Our work thus provides a starting point for understanding the unexplored synergies between software model checking and greybox fuzzing.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".