MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402705716 · doi:10.1145/3658644.3690255

AutoPatch: Automated Generation of Hotpatches for Real-Time Embedded Devices

2024· preprint· en· W4402705716 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Salehi, Karthik Pattabiraman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRebootEmbedded systemCompilerOverhead (engineering)SoftwareEmbedded softwareState (computer science)Vulnerability (computing)Operating systemComputer securityProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time embedded devices like medical or industrial devices are increasingly targeted by cyber-attacks. Prompt patching is crucial to mitigate the serious consequences of such attacks on these devices. Hotpatching is an approach to apply a patch to mission-critical embedded devices without rebooting them. However, existing hotpatching approaches require developers to manually write the hotpatch for target systems, which is time-consuming and error-prone. To address these issues, we propose AutoPatch, a new hotpatching technique that automatically generates functionally equivalent hotpatches via static analysis of the official patches. AutoPatch introduces a new software triggering approach that supports diverse embedded devices, and preserves the functionality of the official patch. In contrast to prior work, AutoPatch does not rely on hardware support for triggering patches, or on executing patches in specialized virtual machines. We implemented AutoPatch using the LLVM compiler, and evaluated its efficiency, effectiveness and generality using 62 real CVEs on four embedded devices with different specifications and architectures running popular RTOSes. We found that AutoPatch can fix more than 90% of CVEs, and resolve the vulnerability successfully. The results revealed an average total delay of less than 12.7 $\mu s$ for fixing the vulnerabilities, representing a performance improvement of 50% over RapidPatch, a state-of-the-art approach. Further, our memory overhead, on average, was slightly lower than theirs (23%). Finally, AutoPatch was able to generate hotpatches for all four devices without any modifications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207