Showing 1–11 of 11 results for author: Gopinath, R

Example-Free Learning of Regular Languages with Prefix Queries

Authors: Eve Fernando, Sasha Rubin, Rahul Gopinath

Abstract: Language learning refers to the problem of inferring a mathematical model which accurately represents a formal language. Many language learning algorithms learn by asking certain types of queries about the language being modeled. Language learning is of practical interest in the field of cybersecurity, where it is used to model the language accepted by a program's input parser (also known as its i… ▽ More Language learning refers to the problem of inferring a mathematical model which accurately represents a formal language. Many language learning algorithms learn by asking certain types of queries about the language being modeled. Language learning is of practical interest in the field of cybersecurity, where it is used to model the language accepted by a program's input parser (also known as its input processor). In this setting, a learner can only query a string of its choice by executing the parser on it, which limits the language learning algorithms that can be used. Most practical parsers can indicate not only whether the string is valid or not, but also where the parsing failed. This extra information can be leveraged into producing a type of query we call the prefix query. Notably, no existing language learning algorithms make use of prefix queries, though some ask membership queries i.e., they ask whether or not a given string is valid. When these approaches are used to learn the language of a parser, the prefix information provided by the parser remains unused. In this work, we present PL*, the first known language learning algorithm to make use of the prefix query, and a novel modification of the classical L* algorithm. We show both theoretically and empirically that PL* is able to learn more efficiently than L* due to its ability to exploit the additional information given by prefix queries over membership queries. Furthermore, we show how PL* can be used to learn the language of a parser, by adapting it to a more practical setting in which prefix queries are the only source of information available to it; that is, it does not have access to any labelled examples or any other types of queries. We demonstrate empirically that, even in this more constrained setting, PL* is still capable of accurately learning a range of languages of practical interest. △ Less

Submitted 2 April, 2025; originally announced April 2025.

MSC Class: 68Q45; 68T05 ACM Class: F.4.3; I.2.6

Mutation Analysis with Execution Taints

Authors: Rahul Gopinath, Philipp Goerz

Abstract: Mutation analysis is one of the most effective, but costly means of assessing the ability of software test suites to prevent bugs. Traditional mutation analysis involves producing and evaluating syntactic variants of the original to check whether the test suite under evaluation is capable of distinguishing between the variant and the original in terms of behavior. Evaluating each mutant separate… ▽ More Mutation analysis is one of the most effective, but costly means of assessing the ability of software test suites to prevent bugs. Traditional mutation analysis involves producing and evaluating syntactic variants of the original to check whether the test suite under evaluation is capable of distinguishing between the variant and the original in terms of behavior. Evaluating each mutant separately means a large amount of redundant computation, both between the original program and mutants, and also between different mutants. Previous work explored numerous means of removing redundancy. However, some amount of redundancy has remained especially in the post-mutation phase. In this paper, we propose execution taints--A novel technique that repurposes dynamic data-flow taints for mutation analysis. Our technique is the only technique that can remove the redundancy in post-mutation phase, achieving better efficiency in mutation analysis. We further leverage memoization to eliminate redundant execution between program variants. △ Less

Submitted 2 March, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

ACM Class: D.2.5

Systematic Assessment of Fuzzers using Mutation Analysis

Authors: Philipp Görz, Björn Mathis, Keno Hassler, Emre Güler, Thorsten Holz, Andreas Zeller, Rahul Gopinath

Abstract: Fuzzing is an important method to discover vulnerabilities in programs. Despite considerable progress in this area in the past years, measuring and comparing the effectiveness of fuzzers is still an open research question. In software testing, the gold standard for evaluating test quality is mutation analysis, which evaluates a test's ability to detect synthetic bugs: If a set of tests fails to de… ▽ More Fuzzing is an important method to discover vulnerabilities in programs. Despite considerable progress in this area in the past years, measuring and comparing the effectiveness of fuzzers is still an open research question. In software testing, the gold standard for evaluating test quality is mutation analysis, which evaluates a test's ability to detect synthetic bugs: If a set of tests fails to detect such mutations, it is expected to also fail to detect real bugs. Mutation analysis subsumes various coverage measures and provides a large and diverse set of faults that can be arbitrarily hard to trigger and detect, thus preventing the problems of saturation and overfitting. Unfortunately, the cost of traditional mutation analysis is exorbitant for fuzzing, as mutations need independent evaluation. In this paper, we apply modern mutation analysis techniques that pool multiple mutations and allow us -- for the first time -- to evaluate and compare fuzzers with mutation analysis. We introduce an evaluation bench for fuzzers and apply it to a number of popular fuzzers and subjects. In a comprehensive evaluation, we show how we can use it to assess fuzzer performance and measure the impact of improved techniques. The required CPU time remains manageable: 4.09 CPU years are needed to analyze a fuzzer on seven subjects and a total of 141,278 mutations. We find that today's fuzzers can detect only a small percentage of mutations, which should be seen as a challenge for future research -- notably in improving (1) detecting failures beyond generic crashes (2) triggering mutations (and thus faults). △ Less

Submitted 25 July, 2023; v1 submitted 6 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

Comments: 13 pages, 4 figures

ACM Class: D.2.5; D.4.6

Input Repair via Synthesis and Lightweight Error Feedback

Authors: Lukas Kirschner, Ezekiel Soremekun, Rahul Gopinath, Andreas Zeller

Abstract: Often times, input data may ostensibly conform to a given input format, but cannot be parsed by a conforming program, for instance, due to human error or data corruption. In such cases, a data engineer is tasked with input repair, i.e., she has to manually repair the corrupt data such that it follows a given format, and hence can be processed by the conforming program. Such manual repair can be ti… ▽ More Often times, input data may ostensibly conform to a given input format, but cannot be parsed by a conforming program, for instance, due to human error or data corruption. In such cases, a data engineer is tasked with input repair, i.e., she has to manually repair the corrupt data such that it follows a given format, and hence can be processed by the conforming program. Such manual repair can be time-consuming and error-prone. In particular, input repair is challenging without an input specification (e.g., input grammar) or program analysis. In this work, we show that incorporating lightweight failure feedback (e.g., input incompleteness) to parsers is sufficient to repair any corrupt input data with maximal closeness to the semantics of the input data. We propose an approach (called FSYNTH) that leverages lightweight error-feedback and input synthesis to repair invalid inputs. FSYNTH is grammar-agnostic, and it does not require program analysis. Given a conforming program, and any invalid input, FSYNTH provides a set of repairs prioritized by the distance of the repair from the original input. We evaluate FSYNTH on 806 (real-world) invalid inputs using four well-known input formats, namely INI, TinyC, SExp, and cJSON. In our evaluation, we found that FSYNTH recovers 91% of valid input data. FSYNTH is also highly effective and efficient in input repair: It repairs 77% of invalid inputs within four minutes. It is up to 35% more effective than DDMax, the previously best-known approach. Overall, our approach addresses several limitations of DDMax, both in terms of what it can repair, as well as in terms of the set of repairs offered. △ Less

Submitted 17 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

ACM Class: D.2

Mutation Analysis: Answering the Fuzzing Challenge

Authors: Rahul Gopinath, Philipp Görz, Alex Groce

Abstract: Fuzzing is one of the fastest growing fields in software testing. The idea behind fuzzing is to check the behavior of software against a large number of randomly generated inputs, trying to cover all interesting parts of the input space, while observing the tested software for anomalous behaviour. One of the biggest challenges facing fuzzer users is how to validate software behavior, and how to im… ▽ More Fuzzing is one of the fastest growing fields in software testing. The idea behind fuzzing is to check the behavior of software against a large number of randomly generated inputs, trying to cover all interesting parts of the input space, while observing the tested software for anomalous behaviour. One of the biggest challenges facing fuzzer users is how to validate software behavior, and how to improve the quality of oracles used. While mutation analysis is the premier technique for evaluating the quality of software test oracles, mutation score is rarely used as a metric for evaluating fuzzer quality. Unless mutation analysis researchers can solve multiple problems that make applying mutation analysis to fuzzing challenging, mutation analysis may be permanently sidelined in one of the most important areas of testing and security research. This paper attempts to understand the main challenges in applying mutation analysis for evaluating fuzzers, so that researchers can focus on solving these challenges. △ Less

Submitted 12 February, 2022; v1 submitted 26 January, 2022; originally announced January 2022.

MSC Class: 68-04 ACM Class: D.2.5

FormatFuzzer: Effective Fuzzing of Binary File Formats

Authors: Rafael Dutra, Rahul Gopinath, Andreas Zeller

Abstract: Effective fuzzing of programs that process structured binary inputs, such as multimedia files, is a challenging task, since those programs expect a very specific input format. Existing fuzzers, however, are mostly format-agnostic, which makes them versatile, but also ineffective when a specific format is required. We present FormatFuzzer, a generator for format-specific fuzzers. FormatFuzzer takes… ▽ More Effective fuzzing of programs that process structured binary inputs, such as multimedia files, is a challenging task, since those programs expect a very specific input format. Existing fuzzers, however, are mostly format-agnostic, which makes them versatile, but also ineffective when a specific format is required. We present FormatFuzzer, a generator for format-specific fuzzers. FormatFuzzer takes as input a binary template (a format specification used by the 010 Editor) and compiles it into C++ code that acts as parser, mutator, and highly efficient generator of inputs conforming to the rules of the language. The resulting format-specific fuzzer can be used as a standalone producer or mutator in black-box settings, where no guidance from the program is available. In addition, by providing mutable decision seeds, it can be easily integrated with arbitrary format-agnostic fuzzers such as AFL to make them format-aware. In our evaluation on complex formats such as MP4 or ZIP, FormatFuzzer showed to be a highly effective producer of valid inputs that also detected previously unknown memory errors in ffmpeg and timidity. △ Less

Submitted 27 September, 2023; v1 submitted 23 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Comments: ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Using Relative Lines of Code to Guide Automated Test Generation for Python

Authors: Josie Holmes, Iftekhar Ahmed, Caius Brindescu, Rahul Gopinath, He Zhang, Alex Groce

Abstract: Raw lines of code (LOC) is a metric that does not, at first glance, seem extremely useful for automated test generation. It is both highly language-dependent and not extremely meaningful, semantically, within a language: one coder can produce the same effect with many fewer lines than another. However, relative LOC, between components of the same project, turns out to be a highly useful metric for… ▽ More Raw lines of code (LOC) is a metric that does not, at first glance, seem extremely useful for automated test generation. It is both highly language-dependent and not extremely meaningful, semantically, within a language: one coder can produce the same effect with many fewer lines than another. However, relative LOC, between components of the same project, turns out to be a highly useful metric for automated testing. In this paper, we make use of a heuristic based on LOC counts for tested functions to dramatically improve the effectiveness of automated test generation. This approach is particularly valuable in languages where collecting code coverage data to guide testing has a very high overhead.We apply the heuristic to property-based Python testing using the TSTL (Template Scripting Testing Language) tool. In our experiments, the simple LOC heuristic can improve branch and statement coverage by large margins (often more than 20%, up to 40% or more), and improve fault detection by an even larger margin (usually more than 75%, and up to 400% or more). The LOC heuristic is also easy to combine with other approaches, and is comparable to, and possibly more effective than, two well-established approaches for guiding random testing. △ Less

Submitted 11 March, 2021; originally announced March 2021.

Journal ref: ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 29(4), 1-38 (2020)

Fuzzing with Fast Failure Feedback

Authors: Rahul Gopinath, Bachir Bendrissou, Björn Mathis, Andreas Zeller

Abstract: Fuzzing -- testing programs with random inputs -- has become the prime technique to detect bugs and vulnerabilities in programs. To generate inputs that cover new functionality, fuzzers require execution feedback from the program -- for instance, the coverage obtained by previous inputs, or the conditions that need to be resolved to cover new branches. If such execution feedback is not available,… ▽ More Fuzzing -- testing programs with random inputs -- has become the prime technique to detect bugs and vulnerabilities in programs. To generate inputs that cover new functionality, fuzzers require execution feedback from the program -- for instance, the coverage obtained by previous inputs, or the conditions that need to be resolved to cover new branches. If such execution feedback is not available, though, fuzzing can only rely on chance, which is ineffective. In this paper, we introduce a novel fuzzing technique that relies on failure feedback only -- that is, information on whether an input is valid or not, and if not, where the error occurred. Our bFuzzer tool enumerates byte after byte of the input space and tests the program until it finds valid prefixes, and continues exploration from these prefixes. Since no instrumentation or execution feedback is required, bFuzzer is language agnostic and the required tests execute very quickly. We evaluate our technique on five subjects, and show that bFuzzer is effective and efficient even in comparison to its white-box counterpart. △ Less

Submitted 25 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: 12 pages, 6 figures

ACM Class: D.4.6; D.2.5

Inferring Input Grammars from Dynamic Control Flow

Authors: Rahul Gopinath, Björn Mathis, Andreas Zeller

Abstract: A program is characterized by its input model, and a formal input model can be of use in diverse areas including vulnerability analysis, reverse engineering, fuzzing and software testing, clone detection and refactoring. Unfortunately, input models for typical programs are often unavailable or out of date. While there exist algorithms that can mine the syntactical structure of program inputs, they… ▽ More A program is characterized by its input model, and a formal input model can be of use in diverse areas including vulnerability analysis, reverse engineering, fuzzing and software testing, clone detection and refactoring. Unfortunately, input models for typical programs are often unavailable or out of date. While there exist algorithms that can mine the syntactical structure of program inputs, they either produce unwieldy and incomprehensible grammars, or require heuristics that target specific parsing patterns. In this paper, we present a general algorithm that takes a program and a small set of sample inputs and automatically infers a readable context-free grammar capturing the input language of the program. We infer the syntactic input structure only by observing access of input characters at different locations of the input parser. This works on all program stack based recursive descent input parsers, including PEG and parser combinators, and can do entirely without program specific heuristics. Our Mimid prototype produced accurate and readable grammars for a variety of evaluation subjects, including expr, URLparse, and microJSON. △ Less

Submitted 12 December, 2019; originally announced December 2019.

MSC Class: D.2.0; D.2.4; D.2.5; D.3.0 ACM Class: D.2.0; D.2.4; D.2.5; D.3.0

Building Fast Fuzzers

Authors: Rahul Gopinath, Andreas Zeller

Abstract: Fuzzing is one of the key techniques for evaluating the robustness of programs against attacks. Fuzzing has to be effective in producing inputs that cover functionality and find vulnerabilities. But it also has to be efficient in producing such inputs quickly. Random fuzzers are very efficient, as they can quickly generate random inputs; but they are not very effective, as the large majority of in… ▽ More Fuzzing is one of the key techniques for evaluating the robustness of programs against attacks. Fuzzing has to be effective in producing inputs that cover functionality and find vulnerabilities. But it also has to be efficient in producing such inputs quickly. Random fuzzers are very efficient, as they can quickly generate random inputs; but they are not very effective, as the large majority of inputs generated is syntactically invalid. Grammar-based fuzzers make use of a grammar (or another model for the input language) to produce syntactically correct inputs, and thus can quickly cover input space and associated functionality. Existing grammar-based fuzzers are surprisingly inefficient, though: Even the fastest grammar fuzzer Dharma still produces inputs about a thousand times slower than the fastest random fuzzer. So far, one can have an effective or an efficient fuzzer, but not both. In this paper, we describe how to build fast grammar fuzzers from the ground up, treating the problem of fuzzing from a programming language implementation perspective. Starting with a Python textbook approach, we adopt and adapt optimization techniques from functional programming and virtual machine implementation techniques together with other novel domain-specific optimizations in a step-by-step fashion. In our F1 prototype fuzzer, these improve production speed by a factor of 100--300 over the fastest grammar fuzzer Dharma. As F1 is even 5--8 times faster than a lexical random fuzzer, we can find bugs faster and test with much larger valid inputs than previously possible. △ Less

Submitted 18 November, 2019; originally announced November 2019.

Comments: 12 pages, 12 figures

ACM Class: D.4.6; D.2.5

Sample-Free Learning of Input Grammars for Comprehensive Software Fuzzing

Authors: Rahul Gopinath, Björn Mathis, Mathias Höschele, Alexander Kampmann, Andreas Zeller

Abstract: Generating valid test inputs for a program is much easier if one knows the input language. We present first successes for a technique that, given a program P without any input samples or models, learns an input grammar that represents the syntactically valid inputs for P -- a grammar which can then be used for highly effective test generation for P . To this end, we introduce a test generator targ… ▽ More Generating valid test inputs for a program is much easier if one knows the input language. We present first successes for a technique that, given a program P without any input samples or models, learns an input grammar that represents the syntactically valid inputs for P -- a grammar which can then be used for highly effective test generation for P . To this end, we introduce a test generator targeted at input parsers that systematically explores parsing alternatives based on dynamic tracking of constraints; the resulting inputs go into a grammar learner producing a grammar that can then be used for fuzzing. In our evaluation on subjects such as JSON, URL, or Mathexpr, our PYGMALION prototype took only a few minutes to infer grammars and generate thousands of valid high-quality inputs. △ Less

Submitted 18 October, 2018; originally announced October 2018.