Modern fuzzing tools like AFL operate at a lexical level: They explore the input space of tested programs one byte after another. For inputs with complex syntactical properties, this is very inefficient, as keywords and other tokens have to be composed one character at a time. Fuzzers thus allow to specify dictionaries listing possible tokens the input can be composed from; such dictionaries speed up fuzzers dramatically. Also, fuzzers make use of dynamic tainting to track input tokens and infer values that are expected in the input validation phase. Unfortunately, such tokens are usually implicitly converted to program specific values which causes a loss of the taints attached to the input data in the lexical phase. In this paper, we present a technique to extend dynamic tainting to not only track explicit data flows but also taint implicitly converted data without suffering from taint explosion. This extension makes it possible to augment existing techniques and automatically infer a set of tokens and seed inputs for the input language of a program given nothing but the source code. Specifically targeting the lexical analysis of an input processor, our lFuzzer test generator systematically explores branches of the lexical analysis, producing a set of tokens that fully cover all decisions seen. The resulting set of tokens can be directly used as a dictionary for fuzzing. Along with the token extraction seed inputs are generated which give further fuzzing processes a head start. In our experiments, the lFuzzer-AFL combination achieves up to 17% more coverage on complex input formats like json, lisp, tinyC, and JavaScript compared to AFL.

One of the key properties of a program is its input specification. Having a formal input specification can be critical in fields such as vulnerability analysis, reverse engineering, software testing, clone detection, or refactoring. Unfortunately, accurate input specifications for typical programs are often unavailable or out of date.

To be effective, software test generation needs to well cover the space of possible inputs. Traditional fuzzing generates large numbers of random inputs, which however are unlikely to contain keywords and other specific inputs of non-trivial input languages. Constraint-based test generation solves conditions of paths leading to uncovered code, but fails on programs with complex input conditions because of path explosion. In this paper, we present a test generation technique specifically directed at input parsers. We systematically produce inputs for the parser and track comparisons made; after every rejection, we satisfy the comparisons leading to rejection. This approach effectively covers the input space: Evaluated on five subjects, from CSV files to JavaScript, our pFuzzer prototype covers more tokens than both random-based and constraint-based approaches, while requiring no symbolic analysis and far fewer tests than random fuzzers.

Dynamic tainting is an important part of modern software engineering research. State-of-the-art tools for debugging, bug detection and program analysis make use of this technique. Nonetheless, the research area based on dynamic tainting still has open questions, among others the automatic generation of program inputs.

Analyzing information flow is central in assessing the security of applications. However, static and dynamic analyses of information flow are easily challenged by non-available or obscure code. We present a lightweight mutation-based analysis that systematically mutates dynamic values returned by sensitive sources to assess whether the mutation changes the values passed to sensitive sinks. If so, we found a flow between source and sink. In contrast to existing techniques, mutation-based flow analysis does not attempt to identify the specific path of the flow and is thus resilient to obfuscation. In its evaluation, our MUTAFLOW prototype for Android programs showed that mutation-based flow analysis is a lightweight yet effective complement to existing tools. Compared to the popular FlowDroid static analysis tool, MutaFlow requires less than 10% of source code lines but has similar accuracy; on 20 tested real-world apps, it is able to detect 75 flows that FlowDroid misses.