Advertisement

Legion: Best-First Concolic Testing (Competition Contribution)

Open Access
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12076)

Abstract

Legion is a grey-box coverage-based concolic tool that aims to balance the complementary nature of fuzzing and symbolic execution to achieve the best of both worlds. It proposes a variation of Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) that formulates program exploration as sequential decision-making under uncertainty guided by the best-first search strategy. It relies on approximate path-preserving fuzzing, a novel instance of constrained random testing, which quickly generates many diverse inputs that likely target program parts of interest. In Test-Comp 2020 [1], the prototype performed within 90% of the best score in 9 of 22 categories.

Keywords

Symbolic Execution Fuzzing Monte Carlo Search 

References

  1. 1.
    Beyer, D.: Second competition on software testing: Test-comp 2020. In: Proc. of Fundamental Aspects of Software Engineering (FASE). LNCS, Springer (2020), https://www.sosy-lab.org/research/pub/2020-FASE.Second_Competition_on_Software_Testing_Test-Comp_2020.pdf
  2. 2.
    Bjørner, N., Phan, A.D., Fleckenstein, L.: \(\nu \)Z-an optimizing SMT solver. In: Proc. of Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 194–199. Springer (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_14
  3. 3.
    Browne, C.B., Powley, E., Whitehouse, D., Lucas, S.M., Cowling, P.I., Rohlfshagen, P., Tavener, S., Perez, D., Samothrakis, S., Colton, S.: A survey of monte carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 4(1), 1–43 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TCIAIG.2012.2186810
  4. 4.
    Dutra, R., Laeufer, K., Bachrach, J., Sen, K.: Efficient sampling of SAT solutions for testing. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). pp. 549–559. ACM (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180248
  5. 5.
    Godefroid, P., Levin, M.Y., Molnar, D.A., et al.: Automated whitebox fuzz testing. In: Proc. of Network and Distributed Systems Security (NDSS). vol. 8, pp. 151–166. The Internet Society (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Communications of the ACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976).  https://doi.org/10.1145/360248.360252
  7. 7.
    Takanen, A., Demott, J.D., Miller, C., Kettunen, A.: Fuzzing for software security testing and quality assurance. Artech House (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, F., Shoshitaishvili, Y.: Angr - the next generation of binary analysis. In: Proc. of Cybersecurity Development (SecDev). pp. 8–9. IEEE (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/SecDev.2017.14

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.LMU MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations