Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Tools for Smart Contracts: How Far Are We?
Kaixuan Li, Yue Xue, Sen Chen, Han Liu, Kairan Sun, Ming Hu, Haijun Wang, Yang Liu, Yixiang Chen
Abstract
In recent years, the importance of smart contract security has been heightened by the increasing number of attacks against them. To address this issue, a multitude of static application security testing (SAST) tools have been proposed for detecting vulnerabilities in smart contracts. However, objectively comparing these tools to determine their effectiveness remains challenging. Existing studies often fall short due to the taxonomies and benchmarks only covering a coarse and potentially outdated set of vulnerability types, which leads to evaluations that are not entirely comprehensive and may display bias.
In this paper, we fill this gap by proposing an up-to-date and fine-grained taxonomy that includes 45 unique vulnerability types for smart contracts. Taking it as a baseline, we develop an extensive benchmark that covers 40 distinct types and includes a diverse range of code characteristics, vulnerability patterns, and application scenarios. Based on them, we evaluated 8 SAST tools using this benchmark, which comprises 788 smart contract files and 10,394 vulnerabilities. Our results reveal that the existing SAST tools fail to detect around 50% of vulnerabilities in our benchmark and suffer from high false positives, with precision not surpassing 10%. We also discover that by combining the results of multiple tools, the false negative rate can be reduced effectively, at the expense of flagging 36.77 percentage points more functions. Nevertheless, many vulnerabilities, especially those beyond Access Control and Reentrancy vulnerabilities, remain undetected. We finally highlight the valuable insights from our study, hoping to provide guidance on tool development, enhancement, evaluation, and selection for developers, researchers, and practitioners.
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 76394db3-fa6b-4c72-9e31-9dba80df1395Cited by top-tier papers7
- On Prescription or Off Prescription? An Empirical Study of Community-Prescribed Security Configurations for KubernetesShazibul Islam Shamim, Hanyang Hu, Akond RahmanICSE 2025 · 4 citations
- Learning from the Past: Real-World Exploit Migration for Smart Contract PoC GenerationKairan Sun, Zhengzi Xu, Kaixuan Li, Lyuye Zhang et al.ASE 2025 · 3 citations
- FORGE: An LLM-driven Framework for Large-Scale Smart Contract Vulnerability Dataset ConstructionJiachi Chen, Yiming Shen, Jiashuo Zhang, Zihao Li et al.ICSE 2026 · 3 citations
- Have We Solved Access Control Vulnerability Detection in Smart Contracts? A Benchmark StudyHan Liu, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Shuai Wang et al.ASE 2025 · 1 citation
- Demystifying OpenZeppelin's Own Vulnerabilities and Analyzing Their Propagation in Smart ContractsHan Liu, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Shuai Wang et al.ASE 2025 · 1 citation
Builds on23
- Securify: Practical Security Analysis of Smart ContractsPetar Tsankov, Andrei Marian Dan, Dana Drachsler-Cohen, Arthur Gervais et al.CCS 2018 · 1,108 citations
- ZEUS: Analyzing Safety of Smart ContractsSukrit Kalra, Seep Goel, Mohan Dhawan, Subodh SharmaNDSS 2018 · 595 citations
- Empirical review of automated analysis tools on 47, 587 Ethereum smart contractsThomas Durieux, João F. Ferreira, Rui Abreu, Pedro CruzICSE 2020 · 373 citations
- teEther: Gnawing at Ethereum to Automatically Exploit Smart ContractsJohannes Krupp, Christian RossowUSENIX Security 2018 · 345 citations
- Sereum: Protecting Existing Smart Contracts Against Re-Entrancy AttacksMichael Rodler, Wenting Li, Ghassan O. Karame, Lucas DaviNDSS 2019 · 298 citations
Related papers
- Empirical evaluation of smart contract testing: what is the best choice?Meng Ren, Zijing Yin, Fuchen Ma, Zhenyang Xu et al.ISSTA 2021 · 83 citations
- Large-Scale Study of Vulnerability Scanners for Ethereum Smart ContractsChristoph Sendner, Lukas Petzi, Jasper Stang, Alexandra DmitrienkoS&P 2024 · 19 citations
- Comparison and Evaluation on Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Tools for JavaKaixuan Li, Sen Chen, Lingling Fan, Ruitao Feng et al.FSE 2023 · 43 citations
- Are We There Yet? Unraveling the State-of-the-Art Smart Contract FuzzersShuohan Wu, Zihao Li, Luyi Yan, Weimin Chen et al.ICSE 2024 · 24 citations
- Uncover the Premeditated Attacks: Detecting Exploitable Reentrancy Vulnerabilities by Identifying Attacker ContractsShuo Yang, Jiachi Chen, Mingyuan Huang, Zibin Zheng et al.ICSE 2024 · 24 citations
