Automated Whitebox Fuzz Testing. Author(s): P. Godefroid, M. Levin, D. Molnar. Download: Paper (PDF). Date: 8 Feb Document Type: Reports. Additional . Fuzzing or fuzz testing is an automated software testing technique that involves providing . A whitebox fuzzer can be very effective at exposing bugs that hide deep in the program. However, the time used for analysis (of the program or its. Automated Whitebox. Fuzz Testing. Patrice Godefroid (Microsoft Research) . Michael Y. Levin (Microsoft Center for. Software Excellence) . David Molnar.

Author: Felabar Tozshura
Country: Costa Rica
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 8 December 2015
Pages: 437
PDF File Size: 14.43 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.72 Mb
ISBN: 457-3-85921-698-1
Downloads: 56443
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nile

An effective fuzzer generates semi-valid inputs that are “valid enough” in that they are not directly rejected automates the parser, but do create unexpected behaviors deeper in the program and are “invalid enough” to expose corner cases that have not been properly dealt with. A white-box fuzzer [30] [25] leverages program analysis fuzzz systematically increase code coverage or to reach certain critical program locations.

The rationale is, if a fuzzer does not exercise certain structural elements in the program, then it is also not able to reveal bugs that are hiding in these elements.

Fuzzing – Wikipedia

Testing programs with random inputs dates back to the s when data was still stored on punched cards. In automated software testingthis is also called the test oracle problem. For instance, a program written in C may or may not crash when an input causes a buffer overflow.

Retrieved 13 March A fuzzer produces a large number of inputs, whtiebox many of the failure-inducing ones may effectively expose the same software bug. It is a serious vulnerability that allows adversaries to decipher otherwise encrypted communication. Fuzzing is used mostly as an automated technique to expose vulnerabilities in security-critical programs that might be exploited with malicious intent.

This might lead to false positives where the tool reports problems with the program that do actually not exist.

Fuzzing can also be used to detect “differential” whitenox if a reference implementation is available. A gray-box fuzzer leverages instrumentation rather than program analysis to glean information about the program.


Automated Whitebox Fuzz Testing – NDSS Symposium

Several of these bugs are potentially exploitable memory access fuzzz. A smart model-based, [25] grammar-based, [24] [26] or protocol-based [27] fuzzer leverages the input model to generate a greater proportion of valid inputs. In order to expose bugs, a fuzzer must be able to distinguish expected normal from unexpected buggy program behavior.

If an execution testijg undesired behavior, a bug had been detected and was fixed. If the whitebox fuzzer takes relatively too long to generate an input, a blackbox fuzzer will be more efficient. This process is repeated with the help of a code-coverage maximizing heuristic designed to find defects as fast as possible. For instance, if the input can be modelled as an abstract syntax treethen a smart mutation-based fuzzer [26] would employ random transformations to move complete subtrees from automatde node to another.

However, the absence of a crash does not indicate the absence of a vulnerability. For instance, LearnLib employs active learning to generate an automaton that represents the behavior of a web application. A generation-based fuzzer generates inputs from scratch.

Some program elements are considered more critical than others. The disadvantage of dumb fuzzers can be illustrated by means of the construction autommated a valid checksum for a cyclic redundancy check CRC.

The corpus of seed files may contain thousands of potentially similar inputs. This structure distinguishes valid input that is accepted and processed by the program from invalid input that is quickly rejected by the program. Fuzzing was used as an effective offense strategy to discover flaws in automatec software of the opponents. We present an alternative teting fuzz testing approach inspired by recent advances in symbolic execution and dynamic test generation.

In DecemberGoogle announced OSS-Fuzz which allows for continuous fuzzing of several security-critical open-source projects.

Software testing Computer security procedures. The execution of random inputs is also called autoated testing or monkey testing. For instance, a smart generation-based fuzzer [24] takes the input model that was provided by the user to generate new inputs.

A mutation-based fuzzer leverages an existing corpus of seed inputs during fuzzing. Even items not normally considered as input can be fuzzed, such as the contents of databasesshared memoryenvironment variables or the precise interleaving of threads.


For instance, in the Google OSS-fuzz project produced around 4 trillion inputs a week. Many Internet-facing services, such as some web server deployments, use Bash to process certain requests, allowing an attacker to cause vulnerable versions of Bash to execute arbitrary commands.

The vulnerability was accidentally introduced into OpenSSL which implements TLS and is used by the majority of the servers on the internet. For instance, SAGE [32] leverages symbolic execution to systematically explore different paths in fuuzz program.

Retrieved from ” https: Shodan reportedmachines still vulnerable in April [16] ;in January Some fuzzers automaetd the capability to do both, to generate inputs from scratch and to generate inputs by mutation of existing seeds. Retrieved 12 March For automated regression testing[41] the generated inputs are executed on two versions of the same program. We have implemented this algorithm in SAGE Scalable, Automated, Guided Executiona new tool employing x86 instruction-level tracing and emulation for whitebox fuzzing of arbitrary file-reading Windows applications.

When the program processes the received file and the recorded checksum does not match the re-computed checksum, then the file is rejected as invalid.

The term “fuzzing” originates from a class project, taught by Barton Miller at the University of Wisconsin.

Automated Whitebox Fuzz Testing

Typically, a fuzzer distinguishes between crashing and non-crashing inputs in the absence of specifications and to use a simple and objective measure. However, generally the input model must be explicitly provided, which is difficult to do when the model is proprietary, unknown, or fuzx complex. However, a dumb fuzzer might generate a lower proportion of valid inputs and stress the parser code rather than the main components of a program.

It showed tremendous potential in the automation of vulnerability detection.