Battling against Protocol Fuzzing: Protecting Networked Embedded Devices from Dynamic Fuzzers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
N etworked E mbedded D evices (NEDs) are increasingly targeted by cyberattacks, mainly due to their widespread use in our daily lives. Vulnerabilities in NEDs are the root causes of these cyberattacks. Although deployed NEDs go through thorough code audits, there can still be considerable exploitable vulnerabilities. Existing mitigation measures like code encryption and obfuscation adopted by vendors can resist static analysis on deployed NEDs, but are ineffective against protocol fuzzing. Attackers can easily apply protocol fuzzing to discover vulnerabilities and compromise deployed NEDs. Unfortunately, prior anti-fuzzing techniques are impractical as they significantly slow down NEDs, hampering NED availability. To address this issue, we propose Armor—the first anti-fuzzing technique specifically designed for NEDs. First, we design three adversarial primitives–delay, fake coverage, and forged exception–to break the fundamental mechanisms on which fuzzing relies to effectively find vulnerabilities. Second, based on our observation that inputs from normal users consistent with the protocol specification and certain program paths are rarely executed with normal inputs, we design static and dynamic strategies to decide whether to activate the adversarial primitives. Extensive evaluations show that Armor incurs negligible time overhead and effectively reduces the code coverage (e.g., line coverage by 22%-61%) for fuzzing, significantly outperforming the state of the art.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".