Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Xiaojun Qin
dblp:153/0254
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 3 · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Computer networks · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
3 papers |
Systems and software security · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Software testing · 84% Program analysis · 16% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery |
1.3 | 3 | 2022 | Path Sensitive Fuzzing for Native Applications · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2022 GREYONE: Data Flow Sensitive Fuzzing · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 CollAFL: Path Sensitive Fuzzing · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery
fuzzing |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | Path Sensitive Fuzzing for Native Applications · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2022 GREYONE: Data Flow Sensitive Fuzzing · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 |
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery › fuzzing
coverage-guided fuzzing |
0.9 | 2 | 2022 | Path Sensitive Fuzzing for Native Applications · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2022 CollAFL: Path Sensitive Fuzzing · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Software testing › fuzzing
coverage-guided fuzzing |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | CollAFL: Path Sensitive Fuzzing · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Software testing
fuzzing |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | CollAFL: Path Sensitive Fuzzing · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Software testing › test coverage
code coverage |
0.3 | 2 | 2022 | Path Sensitive Fuzzing for Native Applications · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2022 CollAFL: Path Sensitive Fuzzing · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Path Sensitive Fuzzing for Native Applications · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
fuzzing strategies · 1.8coverage instrumentation · 1.8bitmap-based coverage · 1.1greybox fuzzing · 0.4data flow analysis · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Path Sensitive Fuzzing for Native ApplicationsabstractCoverage-guided fuzzing is a widely used and effective solution to find software vulnerabilities. Tracking code coverage and utilizing it to guide fuzzing are crucial to coverage-guided fuzzers. However, tracking full and accurate path coverage is infeasible in practice due to the high instrumentation overhead. Popular fuzzers (e.g., AFL) often usecoarsecoverage information, e.g., edge hit counts stored in a compact bitmap, to achieve highly efficient greybox testing. Such inaccuracy and incompleteness in coverage introduce serious limitations to fuzzers. First, it causespath collisions, which prevent fuzzers from discovering potential paths that lead to new crashes. More importantly, it prevents fuzzers from making wise decisions on fuzzing strategies. In this article, we propose a coverage sensitive fuzzing solution CollAFL. It mitigates path collisions by providing more accurate coverage information, while still preserving low instrumentation overhead. It also utilizes the coverage information to apply three new fuzzing strategies, promoting the speed of discovering new paths and vulnerabilities. We implemented two variants of this solution, namely CollAFL (based on AFL) and CollAFL-bin (based on AFL-dyninst), to test applications with and without source code respectively, and evaluated them on 24 popular applications. The results showed that path collisions are common, i.e., up to 75 percent of edges could collide with others in some applications. But our solutions CollAFL and CollAFL-bin could reduce the edge collision ratio to nearly zero. Moreover, armed with the three fuzzing strategies, they outperform their counterparts (i.e., AFL and AFL-dyninst) in terms of both code coverage and vulnerability discovery. On average, CollAFL covered 20 percent more program paths, and found 320 percent more unique crashes and 260 percent more bugs than AFL in 200 hours. Moreover, CollAFL-bin covered 15 percent more paths, and found 200 percent more unique crashes and 150 percent more vulnerabilities than AFL-dyninst, showing that the proposed solution also works for binary application fuzzing. In total, CollAFL found 157 new security bugs with 95 new CVEs assigned. Shuitao Gan, Chao Zhang 0008, Xiaojun Qin, Xuwen Tu, Zhongyu Pei, Zuoning Chen |
IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. | 3 |
| 2021 | firm VulSeeker: BERT and Siamese based Vulnerability for Embedded Device Firmware ImagesabstractIn this paper, we propose firmVulSeeker-a vulnerability search tool for embedded firmware images, based on BERT and Siamese network. It first builds a BERT MLM task to observe and learn the semantics of different instructions in their context in a very large unlabeled binary corpus. Then, a finetune mode based on Siamese network is constructed to guide training and matching semantically similar functions using the knowledge learned from the first stage. Finally, it will use a function embedding generated from the fine-tuned model to search in the targeted corpus and find the most similar function which will be confirmed whether it's a real vulnerability manually. We evaluate the accuracy, robustness, scalability and vulnerability search capability of firmVulSeeker. Results show that it can greatly improve the accuracy of matching semantically similar functions, and can successfully find more real vulnerabilities in real-world firmware than other tools. Yingchao Yu, Shuitao Gan, Xiaojun Qin |
ISCC | 3 |
| 2020 | GREYONE: Data Flow Sensitive Fuzzing
Shuitao Gan, Chao Zhang 0008, Peng Chen 0034, Bodong Zhao, Xiaojun Qin, Zuoning Chen |
USENIX Security Symposium | 5 |
| 2018 | CollAFL: Path Sensitive FuzzingabstractCoverage-guided fuzzing is a widely used and effective solution to find software vulnerabilities. Tracking code coverage and utilizing it to guide fuzzing are crucial to coverage-guided fuzzers. However, tracking full and accurate path coverage is infeasible in practice due to the high instrumentation overhead. Popular fuzzers (e.g., AFL) often use coarse coverage information, e.g., edge hit counts stored in a compact bitmap, to achieve highly efficient greybox testing. Such inaccuracy and incompleteness in coverage introduce serious limitations to fuzzers. First, it causes path collisions, which prevent fuzzers from discovering potential paths that lead to new crashes. More importantly, it prevents fuzzers from making wise decisions on fuzzing strategies. In this paper, we propose a coverage sensitive fuzzing solution CollAFL. It mitigates path collisions by providing more accurate coverage information, while still preserving low instrumentation overhead. It also utilizes the coverage information to apply three new fuzzing strategies, promoting the speed of discovering new paths and vulnerabilities. We implemented a prototype of CollAFL based on the popular fuzzer AFL and evaluated it on 24 popular applications. The results showed that path collisions are common, i.e., up to 75% of edges could collide with others in some applications, and CollAFL could reduce the edge collision ratio to nearly zero. Moreover, armed with the three fuzzing strategies, CollAFL outperforms AFL in terms of both code coverage and vulnerability discovery. On average, CollAFL covered 20% more program paths, found 320% more unique crashes and 260% more bugs than AFL in 200 hours. In total, CollAFL found 157 new security bugs with 95 new CVEs assigned. Shuitao Gan, Chao Zhang 0008, Xiaojun Qin, Xuwen Tu, Zhongyu Pei, Zuoning Chen |
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy | 3 |
| 2014 | Symbolic Execution of Network Software Based on Unit TestingabstractComplex interactions and the distributed nature of network software make automated testing and debugging before deployment a necessity. Symbolic execution is a systematic program analysis technique that has become increasingly popular in network software testing, due to algorithmic advances and availability of computational power and constraint solving technology. However, A main challenge is to detect determining symbolic values for program variables related to library, loops and cryptograph algorithms which are widely used in network software. In this paper, we propose a unit symbolic analysis, a hybrid technique that enables fully automatic symbolic analysis even for the traditionally challenging code. The novelties of this work are threefold: 1) we flexibly employs static symbolic execution to amplify the effect of dynamic symbolic execution on demand, 2) dynamic executions and regression analysis are performed on the unit tests constructed from the code segments to infer program semantics needed by static analysis, and 3) symbolic analysis is utilized to tackle loop structure and cryptograph algorithm module. We developed the Net Sym framework, consisting of a static component that performs symbolic analysis and partitions a program, a dynamic analysis that synthesizes unit tests and automatically infers symbolic values for program variables, and a protocol that enables static and dynamic analyses to be run interactively and concurrently. Our experimental results show that by handling cryptograph algorithms, loops and library calls that a traditional symbolic analysis cannot process, unit symbolic analysis detects more vulnerabilities in less time. The technique is scalable for real-world programs such as GHttpd, SQL Server and GDI. Shuitao Gan, Xiaojun Qin, Wenbao Han |
NAS | 4 |