Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Nodar Ambroladze

dblp:252/4021 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 1

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
1 paper
Systems and software security · 80% Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 20%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery
fuzzing
0.412019
Learning to Fuzz from Symbolic Execution with Application to Smart Contracts · CCS 2019
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery › fuzzing
smart contract fuzzing
0.412019
Learning to Fuzz from Symbolic Execution with Application to Smart Contracts · CCS 2019
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security
smart contract security
0.412019
Learning to Fuzz from Symbolic Execution with Application to Smart Contracts · CCS 2019
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery
symbolic execution
0.412019
Learning to Fuzz from Symbolic Execution with Application to Smart Contracts · CCS 2019
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.412019
Learning to Fuzz from Symbolic Execution with Application to Smart Contracts · CCS 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

neural network policy · 0.4imitation learning · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Learning to Fuzz from Symbolic Execution with Application to Smart Contracts
abstract
Fuzzing and symbolic execution are two complementary techniques for discovering software vulnerabilities. Fuzzing is fast and scalable, but can be ineffective when it fails to randomly select the right inputs. Symbolic execution is thorough but slow and often does not scale to deep program paths with complex path conditions. In this work, we propose to learn an effective and fast fuzzer from symbolic execution, by phrasing the learning task in the framework of imitation learning. During learning, a symbolic execution expert generates a large number of quality inputs improving coverage on thousands of programs. Then, a fuzzing policy, represented with a suitable architecture of neural networks, is trained on the generated dataset. The learned policy can then be used to fuzz new programs. We instantiate our approach to the problem of fuzzing smart contracts, a domain where contracts often implement similar functionality (facilitating learning) and security is of utmost importance. We present an end-to-end system, ILF (for Imitation Learning based Fuzzer), and an extensive evaluation over >18K contracts. Our results show that ILF is effective: (i) it is fast, generating 148 transactions per second, (ii) it outperforms existing fuzzers (e.g., achieving 33% more coverage), and (iii) it detects more vulnerabilities than existing fuzzing and symbolic execution tools for Ethereum.
Mislav Balunovic, Nodar Ambroladze, Petar Tsankov, Martin T. Vechev
CCS3