SMARTIAN: Enhancing Smart Contract Fuzzing with Static and Dynamic Data-Flow Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike traditional software, smart contracts have the unique organization in which a sequence of transactions shares persistent states. Unfortunately, such a characteristic makes it difficult for existing fuzzers to find out critical transaction sequences. To tackle this challenge, we employ both static and dynamic analyses for fuzzing smart contracts. First, we statically analyze smart contract bytecodes to predict which transaction sequences will lead to effective testing, and figure out if there is a certain constraint that each transaction should satisfy. Such information is then passed to the fuzzing phase and used to construct an initial seed corpus. During a fuzzing campaign, we perform a lightweight dynamic data-flow analysis to collect data-flow-based feedback to effectively guide fuzzing. We implement our ideas on a practical open-source fuzzer, named SMARTIAN. SMARTIAN can discover bugs in real-world smart contracts without the need for the source code. Our experimental results show that SMARTIAN is more effective than existing state-of-the-art tools in finding known CVEs from real-world contracts. SMARTIAN also outperforms other tools in terms of code coverage.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".