An empirical study of blockchain system vulnerabilities: modules, types, and patterns
Xiao Yi, Daoyuan Wu, Lingxiao Jiang, Yuzhou Fang, Kehuan Zhang, Wei Zhang
Abstract
Blockchain, as a distributed ledger technology, becomes increasingly popular, especially for enabling valuable cryptocurrencies and smart contracts. However, the blockchain software systems inevitably have many bugs. Although bugs in smart contracts have been extensively investigated, security bugs of the underlying blockchain systems are much less explored. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study on blockchain's system vulnerabilities from four representative blockchains, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero, and Stellar. Specifically, we first design a systematic filtering process to effectively identify 1,037 vulnerabilities and their 2,317 patches from 34,245 issues/PRs (pull requests) and 85,164 commits on GitHub. We thus build the first blockchain vulnerability dataset, which is available at https://github.com/VPRLab/BlkVulnDataset. We then perform unique analyses of this dataset at three levels, including (i) file-level vulnerable module categorization by identifying and correlating module paths across projects, (ii) text-level vulnerability type clustering by natural language processing and similarity-based sentence clustering, and (iii) code-level vulnerability pattern analysis by generating and clustering code change signatures that capture both syntactic and semantic information of patch code fragments.
Our analyses reveal three key findings: (i) some blockchain modules are more susceptible than the others; notably, each of the modules related to consensus, wallet, and networking has over 200 issues; (ii) about 70% of blockchain vulnerabilities are of traditional types, but we also identify four new types specific to blockchains; and (iii) we obtain 21 blockchain-specific vulnerability patterns that capture unique blockchain attributes and statuses, and demonstrate that they can be used to detect similar vulnerabilities in other popular blockchains, such as Dogecoin, Bitcoin SV, and Zcash.
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 4ab4e1fb-345d-4b99-85dd-e8d8d9883498Cited by top-tier papers5
- Combining Fine-Tuning and LLM-Based Agents for Intuitive Smart Contract Auditing with JustificationsWei Ma, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Tianwen Wang et al.ICSE 2025 · 28 citations
- Using My Functions Should Follow My Checks: Understanding and Detecting Insecure OpenZeppelin Code in Smart ContractsHan Liu, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Haijun Wang et al.USENIX Security 2024 · 11 citations
- PropertyGPT: LLM-driven Formal Verification of Smart Contracts through Retrieval-Augmented Property GenerationYe Liu, Yue Xue, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun et al.NDSS 2025
- BlockScope: Detecting and Investigating Propagated Vulnerabilities in Forked Blockchain ProjectsXiao Yi, Yuzhou Fang, Daoyuan Wu, Lingxiao JiangNDSS 2023
- Is My RPC Response Reliable? Detecting RPC Bugs in Blockchain Client under ContextZhijie Zhong, Yuhong Nan, Mingxi Ye, Qing Xue et al.ICSE 2026
Builds on18
- Making Smart Contracts SmarterLoi Luu, Duc-Hiep Chu, Hrishi Olickel, Prateek Saxena et al.CCS 2016 · 2,306 citations
- Securify: Practical Security Analysis of Smart ContractsPetar Tsankov, Andrei Marian Dan, Dana Drachsler-Cohen, Arthur Gervais et al.CCS 2018 · 1,108 citations
- Town Crier: An Authenticated Data Feed for Smart ContractsFan Zhang, Ethan Cecchetti, Kyle Croman, Ari Juels et al.CCS 2016 · 668 citations
- ZEUS: Analyzing Safety of Smart ContractsSukrit Kalra, Seep Goel, Mohan Dhawan, Subodh SharmaNDSS 2018 · 595 citations
- Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing Attacks on CryptocurrenciesMaria Apostolaki, Aviv Zohar, Laurent VanbeverS&P 2017 · 473 citations
Related papers
- Empirical review of automated analysis tools on 47, 587 Ethereum smart contractsThomas Durieux, João F. Ferreira, Rui Abreu, Pedro CruzICSE 2020 · 373 citations
- Can advanced type systems be usable? An empirical study of ownership, assets, and typestate in ObsidianMichael J. Coblenz, Jonathan Aldrich, Brad A. Myers, Joshua SunshineOOPSLA 2020 · 15 citations
- Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: Vulnerable Does Not Imply ExploitedDaniel Perez, Benjamin LivshitsUSENIX Security 2021 · 150 citations
- Panda: Security Analysis of Algorand Smart ContractsZhiyuan Sun, Xiapu Luo, Yinqian ZhangUSENIX Security 2023
- A large-scale empirical study on vulnerability distribution within projects and the lessons learnedBingchang Liu, Guozhu Meng, Wei Zou, Qi Gong et al.ICSE 2020 · 43 citations
