MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410028485 · doi:10.1145/3733717

Learning-Guided Fuzzing for Testing Stateful SDN Controllers

2025· article· en· W4410028485 on OpenAlexaff
Raphaël Ollando, Seung Yeob Shin, Lionel Briand

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzz testingStateful firewallComputer scienceComputer securityProgramming languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controllers for software-defined networks (SDNs) are centralised software components that enable advanced network functionalities, such as dynamic traffic engineering and network virtualisation. However, these functionalities increase the complexity of SDN controllers, making thorough testing crucial. SDN controllers are stateful, interacting with multiple network devices through sequences of control messages. Identifying stateful failures in an SDN controller is challenging due to the infinite possible sequences of control messages, which result in an unbounded number of stateful interactions between the controller and network devices. In this article, we propose SeqFuzzSDN, a learning-guided fuzzing method for testing stateful SDN controllers. SeqFuzzSDN aims to (1) efficiently explore the state space of the SDN controller under test, (2) generate effective and diverse tests (i.e., control message sequences) to uncover failures and (3) infer accurate failure-inducing models that characterise the message sequences leading to failures. In addition, we compare SeqFuzzSDN with three extensions of state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods for fuzzing SDNs. Our findings show that, compared to the extended SOTA methods, SeqFuzzSDN (1) generates more diverse message sequences that lead to failures within the same time budget and (2) produces more accurate failure-inducing models, significantly outperforming the other extended SOTA methods in terms of sensitivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207