Automated Attack Synthesis for Constant Product Market Makers
Sujin Han, Jinseo Kim, Sung-Ju Lee, Insu Yun
Abstract
DeFi) enables many novel applications that were impossible in traditional finances. However, it also introduces new types of vulnerabilities. An example of such vulnerabilities is a composability bug between token contracts and Decentralized Exchange (DEX) that follows the Constant Product Market Maker (CPMM) model. This type of bug, which we refer to as CPMM composability bug, originates from issues in token contracts that make them incompatible with CPMMs, thereby endangering other tokens within the CPMM ecosystem. Since 2022, 23 exploits of such kind have resulted in a total loss of 2.2M USD. BlockSec, a smart contract auditing company, reported that 138 exploits of such kind occurred just in February 2023. In this paper, we propose CPMMX , a tool that automatically detects CPMM composability bugs across entire blockchains. To achieve such scalability, we first formalized CPMM composability bugs and found that these bugs can be induced by breaking two safety invariants. Based on this finding, we designed CPMMX equipped with a two-step approach, called shallow-then-deep search. In more detail, it first uses shallow search to find transactions that break the invariants. Then, it uses deep search to refine these transactions, making them profitable for the attacker. We evaluated CPMMX against five baselines on two public datasets and one synthetic dataset. In our evaluation, CPMMX detected 2.5x to 1.5x more vulnerabilities compared to baseline methods. It also analyzed contracts significantly faster, achieving higher F1 scores than the baselines. Additionally, we applied CPMMX to all contracts on the latest blocks of the Ethereum and Binance networks and discovered 26 new exploits that can result in 15.7K USD profit in total. CCS Concepts: • Security and privacy → Software security engineering; • Software and its engineering;
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on14
- SMARTIAN: Enhancing Smart Contract Fuzzing with Static and Dynamic Data-Flow AnalysesJaeseung Choi, Doyeon Kim, Soomin Kim, Gustavo Grieco et al.ASE 2021 · 164 citations
- GPTScan: Detecting Logic Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts by Combining GPT with Program AnalysisYuqiang Sun, Daoyuan Wu, Yue Xue, Han Liu et al.ICSE 2024 · 131 citations
- ItyFuzz: Snapshot-Based Fuzzer for Smart ContractChaofan Shou, Shangyin Tan, Koushik SenISSTA 2023 · 76 citations
- SmartDagger: a bytecode-based static analysis approach for detecting cross-contract vulnerabilityZeqin Liao, Zibin Zheng, Xiao Chen, Yuhong NanISSTA 2022 · 64 citations
- AChecker: Statically Detecting Smart Contract Access Control VulnerabilitiesAsem Ghaleb, Julia Rubin, Karthik PattabiramanICSE 2023 · 63 citations
Related papers
- Verifying Economic Security of Smart Contracts via Unintended ReturnYi Rong, Xupeng Li, Ronghui GuOOPSLA 2026
- PromFuzz: Leveraging LLM-Driven and Bug-Oriented Composite Analysis for Detecting Functional Bugs in Smart ContractsXingshuang Lin, Qinge Xie, Binbin Zhao, Yuan Tian et al.ASE 2025 · 5 citations
- Demystifying Exploitable Bugs in Smart ContractsZhuo Zhang, Brian Zhang, Wen Xu, Zhiqiang LinICSE 2023 · 80 citations
- Smart Contract and DeFi Security Tools: Do They Meet the Needs of Practitioners?Stefanos Chaliasos, Marcos Antonios Charalambous, Liyi Zhou, Rafaila Galanopoulou et al.ICSE 2024 · 49 citations
- FORAY: Towards Effective Attack Synthesis against Deep Logical Vulnerabilities in DeFi ProtocolsHongbo Wen, Hanzhi Liu, Jiaxin Song, Yanju Chen et al.CCS 2024 · 6 citations
