Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
ABSTRACTMutation-based greybox fuzzing---unquestionably the most widely-used fuzzing technique---relies on a set of non-crashing seed inputs (a corpus) to bootstrap the bug-finding process. When evaluating a fuzzer, common approaches for constructing this corpus include: (i) using an empty file; (ii) using a single seed representative of the target's input format; or (iii) collecting a large number of seeds (e.g., by crawling the Internet). Little thought is given to how this seed choice affects the fuzzing process, and there is no consensus on which approach is best (or even if a best approach exists). To address this gap in knowledge, we systematically investigate and evaluate how seed selection affects a fuzzer's ability to find bugs in real-world software. This includes a systematic review of seed selection practices used in both evaluation and deployment contexts, and a large-scale empirical evaluation (over 33 CPU-years) of six seed selection approaches. These six seed selection approaches include three corpus minimization techniques (which select the smallest subset of seeds that trigger the same range of instrumentation data points as a full corpus). Our results demonstrate that fuzzing outcomes vary significantly depending on the initial seeds used to bootstrap the fuzzer, with minimized corpora outperforming singleton, empty, and large (in the order of thousands of files) seed sets. Consequently, we encourage seed selection to be foremost in mind when evaluating/deploying fuzzers, and recommend that (a) seed choice be carefully considered and explicitly documented, and (b) never to evaluate fuzzers with only a single seed. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2021 | 10.1145/3460319.3464795 | ISSTA |
Keywords | DocType | Citations |
fuzzing, corpus minimization, software testing | Conference | 3 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.39 | 0 | 6 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adrian Herrera | 1 | 6 | 1.52 |
| Hendra Gunadi | 2 | 3 | 0.39 |
| Shane Magrath | 3 | 3 | 0.39 |
| Michael Norrish | 4 | 1091 | 61.77 |
| Mathias Payer | 5 | 11 | 2.22 |
| Antony L. Hosking | 6 | 3 | 0.39 |