USENIX Security2021Top-tier venue
SmarTest: Effectively Hunting Vulnerable Transaction Sequences in Smart Contracts through Language Model-Guided Symbolic Execution
Sunbeom So, Seongjoon Hong, Hakjoo Oh
Abstract
We present SmarTest, a novel symbolic execution technique for effectively hunting vulnerable transaction sequences in smart contracts. Because smart contracts are stateful programs whose states are altered by transactions, diagnosing and understanding nontrivial vulnerabilities requires generating sequences of transactions that demonstrate the flaws. However, finding such vulnerable transaction sequences is challenging as the number of possible combinations of transactions is intractably large. As a result, most existing tools for smart contract analysis use abstractions and merely point out the locations of vulnerabilities, which in turn imposes a steep burden on users of understanding the bugs, or have limited power in generating transaction sequences. In this paper, we aim to overcome this challenge by combining symbolic execution with a language model for vulnerable transaction sequences, so that symbolic execution effectively prioritizes program paths that are likely to reveal vulnerabilities. Experimental results with real-world smart contracts show that SmarTest significantly outperforms existing tools by finding more vulnerable transaction sequences including critical zero-day vulnerabilities.
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 dfb0c3f7-ae2f-4dfa-8ab9-9baef64e761eCited by top-tier papers21
- Demystifying Exploitable Bugs in Smart ContractsZhuo Zhang, Brian Zhang, Wen Xu, Zhiqiang LinICSE 2023 · 80 citations
- WASAI: uncovering vulnerabilities in Wasm smart contractsWeimin Chen, Zihan Sun, Haoyu Wang, Xiapu Luo et al.ISSTA 2022 · 43 citations
- SmartInv: Multimodal Learning for Smart Contract Invariant InferenceSally Junsong Wang, Kexin Pei, Junfeng YangS&P 2024 · 38 citations
- Efficiently Detecting Reentrancy Vulnerabilities in Complex Smart ContractsZexu Wang, Jiachi Chen, Yanlin Wang, Yu Zhang et al.FSE 2024 · 27 citations
- Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Tools for Smart Contracts: How Far Are We?Kaixuan Li, Yue Xue, Sen Chen, Han Liu et al.FSE 2024 · 26 citations
Builds on13
- 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
- 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
Related papers
- SmarTrim: Symbolic Execution for Smart Contracts Powered by Redundant Transaction-Sequence PruningHyegeun Song, Jiseong Han, Sunbeom SoFSE 2026 · 1 citation
- DepFuzz: Efficient Smart Contract Fuzzing with Function Dependence GuidanceChenyang Ma, Wei Song, Jeff HuangOOPSLA 2025 · 3 citations
- Summary-Based Symbolic Evaluation for Smart ContractsYu Feng, Emina Torlak, Rastislav BodíkASE 2020 · 15 citations
- 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
- LENT-SSE: Leveraging Executed and Near Transactions for Speculative Symbolic Execution of Smart ContractsPeilin Zheng, Bowei Su, Xiapu Luo, Ting Chen et al.ISSTA 2024 · 1 citation
