Estimating residual risk in greybox fuzzing
Marcel Böhme, Danushka Liyanage, Valentin Wüstholz
Abstract
For any errorless fuzzing campaign, no matter how long, there is always some residual risk that a software error would be discovered if only the campaign was run for just a bit longer. Recently, greybox fuzzing tools have found widespread adoption. Yet, practitioners can only guess when the residual risk of a greybox fuzzing campaign falls below a specific, maximum allowable threshold.
In this paper, we explain why residual risk cannot be directly estimated for greybox campaigns, argue that the discovery probability (i.e., the probability that the next generated input increases code coverage) provides an excellent upper bound, and explore sound statistical methods to estimate the discovery probability in an ongoing greybox campaign. We find that estimators for blackbox fuzzing systematically and substantially under-estimate the true risk. An engineerÐwho stops the campaign when the estimators purport a risk below the maximum allowable riskÐis vastly misled. She might need execute a campaign that is orders of magnitude longer to achieve the allowable risk. Hence, the key challenge we address in this paper is adaptive bias: The probability to discover a specific error actually increases over time. We provide the first probabilistic analysis of adaptive bias, and introduce two novel classes of estimators that tackle adaptive bias. With our estimators, the engineer can decide with confidence when to abort the campaign.
• Security and privacy → Software and application security; • Software and its engineering → Software testing and debugging.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 3e26b2a3-ea61-4463-8ba8-9588589dddd5Cited by top-tier papers16
- SoK: Prudent Evaluation Practices for FuzzingMoritz Schloegel, Nils Bars, Nico Schiller, Lukas Bernhard et al.S&P 2024 · 69 citations
- BEDIVFUZZ: Integrating Behavioral Diversity into Generator-based FuzzingHoang Lam Nguyen, Lars GrunskeICSE 2022 · 29 citations
- MC2: Rigorous and Efficient Directed Greybox FuzzingAbhishek Shah, Dongdong She, Samanway Sadhu, Krish Singal et al.CCS 2022 · 15 citations
- Reachable Coverage: Estimating Saturation in FuzzingDanushka Liyanage, Marcel Böhme, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Stephan LippICSE 2023 · 14 citations
- Statistical Reachability AnalysisSeongmin Lee, Marcel BöhmeFSE 2023 · 12 citations
Builds on3
- Coverage-based Greybox Fuzzing as Markov ChainMarcel Böhme, Van-Thuan Pham, Abhik RoychoudhuryCCS 2016 · 1,026 citations
- Boosting fuzzer efficiency: an information theoretic perspectiveMarcel Böhme, Valentin J. M. Manès, Sang Kil ChaFSE 2020 · 115 citations
- Fuzzing: on the exponential cost of vulnerability discoveryMarcel Böhme, Brandon FalkFSE 2020 · 66 citations
Related papers
- Extrapolating Coverage Rate in Greybox FuzzingDanushka Liyanage, Seongmin Lee, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Marcel BöhmeICSE 2024 · 6 citations
- Dependency-aware Residual Risk AnalysisSeongmin Lee, Marcel BöhmeICSE 2026
- Green Fuzzing: A Saturation-Based Stopping Criterion using Vulnerability PredictionStephan Lipp, Daniel Elsner, Severin Kacianka, Alexander Pretschner et al.ISSTA 2023 · 6 citations
- EcoFuzz: Adaptive Energy-Saving Greybox Fuzzing as a Variant of the Adversarial Multi-Armed BanditTai Yue, Pengfei Wang, Yong Tang, Enze Wang et al.USENIX Security 2020
- Variability-Aware FuzzingMeah Tahmeed Ahmed, Arnab Dev, Shiyi WeiICSE 2026
