ZigZagFuzz: Interleaved Fuzzing of Program Options and Files
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Command-line options (e.g., -l , -F , -R for ls ) given to a command-line program can significantly alternate the behaviors of the program. Thus, fuzzing not only file input but also program options can improve test coverage and bug detection. In this article, we propose ZigZagFuzz which achieves higher test coverage and detects more bugs than the state-of-the-art fuzzers by separately mutating program options and file inputs in an iterative/interleaving manner. ZigZagFuzz applies the following three core ideas. First, to utilize different characteristics of the program option domain and the file input domain, ZigZagFuzz separates phases of mutating program options from ones of mutating file inputs and performs two distinct mutation strategies on the two different domains. Second, to reach deep segments of a target program that are accessed through an interleaving sequence of program option checks and file inputs checks, ZigZagFuzz continuously interleaves phases of mutating program options with phases of mutating file inputs. Finally, to improve fuzzing performance further, ZigZagFuzz periodically shrinks input corpus by removing similar test inputs based on their function coverage. The experiment results on the 20 real-world programs show that ZigZagFuzz improves test coverage and detects 1.9 to 10.6 times more bugs than the state-of-the-art fuzzers that mutate program options such as AFL++-argv, AFL++-all, Eclipser, CarpetFuzz, ConfigFuzz, and POWER. We have reported the new bugs detected by ZigZagFuzz, and the original developers confirmed our bug reports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".