While many real-world programs are shipped with configurations to enable/disable functionalities, fuzzers have mostly been applied to test single configurations of these programs. In this work, we first conduct an empirical study to understand how program configurations affect fuzzing performance. We find that limiting a campaign to a single configuration can result in failing to cover a significant amount of code. We also observe that different program configurations contribute differing amounts of code coverage, challenging the idea that each one can be efficiently fuzzed individually. Motivated by these two observations, we propose ConfigFuzz , which can fuzz configurations along with normal inputs. ConfigFuzz transforms the target program to encode its program options within part of the fuzzable input, so existing fuzzers’ mutation operators can be reused to fuzz program configurations. We instantiate ConfigFuzz on six configurable, common fuzzing targets, and integrate their executions in FuzzBench. In our evaluation, ConfigFuzz outperforms two baseline fuzzers in four targets, while the results are mixed in the other targets due to program size and configuration space. We also analyze the options fuzzed by ConfigFuzz and how they affect the performance.

This artifact contains the source code and instructions to reproduce the evaluation results of the article “Fuzzing Configurations of Program Options.” The source code includes the configuration grammars for six target programs, the scripts to generate configuration stubs, and the scripts to post-process fuzzing results. The README of the artifact includes the steps to prepare the experimental environment on a clean Ubuntu machine and step-by-step commands to reproduce the evaluation experiments. A VirtualBox image with ConfigFuzz properly set up is also included.

Fuzz testing has enjoyed great success at discovering security critical bugs in real software. Recently, researchers have devoted significant effort to devising new fuzzing techniques, strategies, and algorithms. Such new ideas are primarily evaluated experimentally so an important question is: What experimental setup is needed to produce trustworthy results? We surveyed the recent research literature and assessed the experimental evaluations carried out by 32 fuzzing papers. We found problems in every evaluation we considered. We then performed our own extensive experimental evaluation using an existing fuzzer. Our results showed that the general problems we found in existing experimental evaluations can indeed translate to actual wrong or misleading assessments. We conclude with some guidelines that we hope will help improve experimental evaluations of fuzz testing algorithms, making reported results more robust.