Pluto: Exposing Vulnerabilities in Inter-Contract Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attacks on smart contracts have caused considerable losses to digital assets. Many techniques based on symbolic execution, fuzzing, and static analysis are used to detect contract vulnerabilities. Most of the current analyzers only consider vulnerability detection intra-contract scenarios. However, Ethereum contracts usually interact with others by calling their functions. A bug hidden in a path that depends on information from external contract calls is defined as an inter-contract vulnerability. Failure to deal with this kind of bug can result in potential false negatives and false positives. In this work, we propose Pluto, which supports vulnerability detection in inter-contract scenarios. It first builds an Inter-contract Control Flow Graph (ICFG) to extract semantic information among contract calls. Afterward, it symbolically explores the ICFG and deduces Inter-Contract Path Constraints (ICPC) to check the reachability of execution paths more accurately. Finally, Pluto detects whether there is a vulnerability based on some predefined rules. For evaluation, we compare Pluto with five state-of-the-art tools, including Oyente, Mythril, Securify, ILF, and Clairvoyance on a labeled benchmark and 39,443 real-world Ethereum smart contracts. The result shows that other tools can only detect 10% of the inter-contract vulnerabilities, while Pluto can detect 80% of them on the labeled dataset. Beyond that, Pluto has detected 451 confirmed vulnerabilities on real-world contracts, including 36 vulnerabilities in inter-contract scenarios. Two bugs have been assigned with unique CVE identifiers by the US National Vulnerability Database (NVD). On average, Pluto costs 16.9 seconds to analyze a contract, which is as fast as the state-of-the-art tools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".