Posez n’importe quelle question sur les cours, conférences, exercices, recherches, actualités, etc. de l’EPFL ou essayez les exemples de questions ci-dessous.
AVERTISSEMENT : Le chatbot Graph n'est pas programmé pour fournir des réponses explicites ou catégoriques à vos questions. Il transforme plutôt vos questions en demandes API qui sont distribuées aux différents services informatiques officiellement administrés par l'EPFL. Son but est uniquement de collecter et de recommander des références pertinentes à des contenus que vous pouvez explorer pour vous aider à répondre à vos questions.
The popularity of coverage-guided greybox fuzzers has led to a tsunami of security-critical bugs that developers must prioritize and fix. Knowing the capabilities a bug exposes (e.g., type of vulnerability, number of bytes read/written) enables prioritization of bug fixes. Unfortunately, understanding a bug's capabilities is a time consuming process, requiring (a) an understanding of the bug's root cause, (b) an understanding how an attacker may exploit the bug, and (c) the development of a patch mitigating these threats. This is a mostly-manual process that is qualitative and arbitrary, potentially leading to a misunderstanding of the bug's capabilities. Evocatio automatically discovers a bug's capabilities. Evocatio analyzes a crashing test case (i.e., an input exposing a bug) to understand the full extent of how an attacker can exploit a bug. Evocatio leverages a capability-guided fuzzer to efficiently uncover new bug capabilities (rather than only generating a single crashing test case for a given bug, as a traditional greybox fuzzer does). We evaluate Evocatio on 38 bugs (34 CVEs and four bug reports) across eight open-source applications. From these bugs, Evocatio: (i) discovered 10× more capabilities (that is, the number of unique capabilities induced by a set of crashes was 10× higher) than AFL++'s crash exploration mode; (ii) converted 19 of the 38 bugs to new bug types (demonstrating the limitations of manual qualitative analysis); and (iii) generated new proof-of-concept (PoC) test cases violating patches for 7 out of 16 tested CVEs, one of which still triggers in the latest version of the software.