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

Ella Bounimova

dblp:46/2696 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 2Systems, architecture and hardware · 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Software testing · 49% Program analysis · 26% Program verification · 13%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › test generation
constraint-based test generation
0.212013
Billions and billions of constraints: whitebox fuzz testing in production · ICSE 2013
Software testing
fuzzing
0.212013
Billions and billions of constraints: whitebox fuzz testing in production · ICSE 2013
Software testing › fuzzing
whitebox fuzzing
0.212013
Billions and billions of constraints: whitebox fuzz testing in production · ICSE 2013
Program analysis
static analysis
0.122010
Thorough static analysis of device drivers · EuroSys 2006
The Static Driver Verifier Research Platform · CAV 2010
Program analysis › error detection
API usage error detection
0.112006
Thorough static analysis of device drivers · EuroSys 2006
Operating systems › i/o › i/o subsystem
device drivers
0.112006
Thorough static analysis of device drivers · EuroSys 2006
Operating systems › i/o › i/o subsystem › device drivers
device driver verification
0.112006
Thorough static analysis of device drivers · EuroSys 2006
Program analysis › symbolic execution
dynamic symbolic execution
0.012013
Billions and billions of constraints: whitebox fuzz testing in production · ICSE 2013
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.012013
Billions and billions of constraints: whitebox fuzz testing in production · ICSE 2013
Program verification
model checking
0.012006
Thorough static analysis of device drivers · EuroSys 2006

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

constraint solving · 0.2SMT solving · 0.2static analysis engine · 0.1API usage rules · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Billions and billions of constraints: whitebox fuzz testing in production
abstract
We report experiences with constraint-based whitebox fuzz testing in production across hundreds of large Windows applications and over 500 machine years of computation from 2007 to 2013. Whitebox fuzzing leverages symbolic execution on binary traces and constraint solving to construct new inputs to a program. These inputs execute previously uncovered paths or trigger security vulnerabilities. Whitebox fuzzing has found one-third of all file fuzzing bugs during the development of Windows 7, saving millions of dollars in potential security vulnerabilities. The technique is in use today across multiple products at Microsoft. We describe key challenges with running whitebox fuzzing in production. We give principles for addressing these challenges and describe two new systems built from these principles: SAGAN, which collects data from every fuzzing run for further analysis, and JobCenter, which controls deployment of our whitebox fuzzing infrastructure across commodity virtual machines. Since June 2010, SAGAN has logged over 3.4 billion constraints solved, millions of symbolic executions, and tens of millions of test cases generated. Our work represents the largest scale deployment of whitebox fuzzing to date, including the largest usage ever for a Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver. We present specific data analyses that improved our production use of whitebox fuzzing. Finally we report data on the performance of constraint solving and dynamic test generation that points toward future research problems.
Ella Bounimova, Patrice Godefroid, David A. Molnar
ICSE1
2010 The Static Driver Verifier Research Platform
Thomas Ball 0001, Ella Bounimova, Vladimir Levin, Rahul Kumar 0002, Jakob Lichtenberg
CAV2
2010 SLAM2: Static driver verification with under 4% false alarms
Thomas Ball 0001, Ella Bounimova, Rahul Kumar 0002, Vladimir Levin
FMCAD2
2006 Thorough static analysis of device drivers
abstract
Bugs in kernel-level device drivers cause 85% of the system crashes in the Windows XP operating system [44]. One of the sources of these errors is the complexity of the Windows driver API itself: programmers must master a complex set of rules about how to use the driver API in order to create drivers that are good clients of the kernel. We have built a static analysis engine that finds API usage errors in C programs. The Static Driver Verifier tool (SDV) uses this engine to find kernel API usage errors in a driver. SDV includes models of the OS and the environment of the device driver, and over sixty API usage rules. SDV is intended to be used by driver developers "out of the box." Thus, it has stringent requirements: (1) complete automation with no input from the user; (2) a low rate of false errors. We discuss the techniques used in SDV to meet these requirements, and empirical results from running SDV on over one hundred Windows device drivers.
Thomas Ball 0001, Ella Bounimova, Byron Cook, Vladimir Levin, Jakob Lichtenberg, Con McGarvey, Bohus Ondrusek, Sriram K. Rajamani, Abdullah Ustuner
EuroSys2