AChecker: Statically Detecting Smart Contract Access Control Vulnerabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As most smart contracts have a financial nature and handle valuable assets, smart contract developers use access control to protect assets managed by smart contracts from being misused by malicious or unauthorized people. Unfortunately, programming languages used for writing smart contracts, such as Solidity, were not designed with a permission-based security model in mind. Therefore, smart contract developers implement access control checks based on their judgment and in an adhoc manner, which results in several vulnerabilities in smart contracts, called access control vulnerabilities. Further, the in-consistency in implementing access control makes it difficult to reason about whether a contract meets access control needs and is free of access control vulnerabilities. In this work, we propose AChecker - an approach for detecting access control vulnerabilities. Unlike prior work, AChecker does not rely on pre-defined patterns or contract transactions history. Instead, it infers access control implemented in smart contracts via static data-flow analysis. Moreover, the approach performs further symbolic-based analysis to distinguish cases when unauthorized people can obtain control of the contract as intended functionality. We evaluated AChecker on three public datasets of real-world smart contracts, including one which consists of contracts with assigned access control CVEs, and compared its effectiveness with eight analysis tools. The evaluation results showed that AChecker outperforms these tools in terms of both precision and recall. In addition, AChecker flagged vulnerabilities in 21 frequently-used contracts on Ethereum blockchain with 90% precision.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".