Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSAVIOR: Towards Bug-Driven Hybrid Testing
72
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Yaohui Chen
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Hybrid testing combines fuzz testing and concolic execution. It leverages fuzz testing to test easy-to-reach code regions and uses concolic execution to explore code blocks guarded by complex branch conditions. However, its code coverage-centric design is inefficient in vulnerability detection. First, it blindly selects seeds for concolic execution and aims to explore new code continuously. However, as statistics show, a large portion of the explored code is often bug-free. Therefore, giving equal attention to every part of the code during hybrid testing is a non-optimal strategy. It slows down the detection of real vulnerabilities by over 43%. Second, classic hybrid testing quickly moves on after reaching a chunk of code, rather than examining the hidden defects inside. It may frequently miss subtle vulnerabilities despite that it has already explored the vulnerable code paths. We propose SAVIOR, a new hybrid testing framework pioneering a bug-driven principle. Unlike the existing hybrid testing tools, SAVIOR prioritizes the concolic execution of the seeds that are likely to uncover more vulnerabilities. Moreover, SAVIOR verifies all vulnerable program locations along the executing program path. By modeling faulty situations using SMT constraints, SAVIOR reasons the feasibility of vulnerabilities and generates concrete test cases as proofs. Our evaluation shows that the bug-driven approach outperforms mainstream automated testing techniques, including state-of-the-art hybrid testing systems driven by code coverage. On average, SAVIOR detects vulnerabilities 43.4% faster than DRILLER and 44.3% faster than QSYM, leading to the discovery of 88 and 76 more uniquebugs,respectively.Accordingtotheevaluationon11 well fuzzed benchmark programs, within the first 24 hours, SAVIOR triggers 481 UBSAN violations, among which 243 are real bugs.
rate research
Read More
Numerous efforts have been invested in improving the effectiveness of bug localization techniques, whereas little attention is paid to making these tools run more efficiently in continuously evolving software repositories. This paper first analyzes the information retrieval model behind a classic bug localization tool, BugLocator, and builds a mathematical foundation illustrating that the model can be updated incrementally when codebase or bug reports evolve. Then, we present IncBL, a tool for Incremental Bug Localization in evolving software repositories. IncBL is evaluated on the Bugzbook dataset, and the results show that IncBL can significantly reduce the running time by 77.79% on average compared with the re-computing the model, while maintaining the same level of accuracy. We also implement IncBL as a Github App that can be easily integrated into open-source projects on GitHub. Users can deploy and use IncBL locally as well. The demo video for IncBL can be viewed at https://youtu.be/G4gMuvlJSb0, and the source code can be found at https://github.com/soarsmu/IncBL.
Bug patterns are erroneous code idioms or bad coding practices that have been proved to fail time and time again, which are usually caused by the misunderstanding of a programming languages features, the use of erroneous design patterns, or simple mistakes sharing common behaviors. This paper identifies and categorizes some bug patterns in the quantum programming language Qiskit and briefly discusses how to eliminate or prevent those bug patterns. We take this research as the first step to provide an underlying basis for debugging and testing quantum programs.
Static bug finders have been widely-adopted by developers to find bugs in real world software projects. They leverage predefined heuristic static analysis rules to scan source code or binary code of a software project, and report violations to these rules as warnings to be verified. However, the advantages of static bug finders are overshadowed by such issues as uncovered obvious bugs, false positives, etc. To improve these tools, many techniques have been proposed to filter out false positives reported or design new static analysis rules. Nevertheless, the under-performance of bug finders can also be caused by the incorrectness of current rules contained in the static bug finders, which is not explored yet. In this work, we propose a differential testing approach to detect bugs in the rules of four widely-used static bug finders, i.e., SonarQube, PMD, SpotBugs, and ErrorProne, and conduct a qualitative study about the bugs found. To retrieve paired rules across static bug finders for differential testing, we design a heuristic-based rule mapping method which combines the similarity in rules description and the overlap in warning information reported by the tools. The experiment on 2,728 open source projects reveals 46 bugs in the static bug finders, among which 24 are fixed or confirmed and the left are awaiting confirmation. We also summarize 13 bug patterns in the static analysis rules based on their context and root causes, which can serve as the checklist for designing and implementing other rules and or in other tools. This study indicates that the commonly-used static bug finders are not as reliable as they might have been envisaged. It not only demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach, but also highlights the need to continue improving the reliability of the static bug finders.
In recent years, we observe an increasing amount of software with machine learning components being deployed. This poses the question of quality assurance for such components: how can we validate whether specified requirements are fulfilled by a machine learned software? Current testing and verification approaches either focus on a single requirement (e.g., fairness) or specialize on a single type of machine learning model (e.g., neural networks). In this paper, we propose property-driven testing of machine learning models. Our approach MLCheck encompasses (1) a language for property specification, and (2) a technique for systematic test case generation. The specification language is comparable to property-based testing languages. Test case generation employs advanced verification technology for a systematic, property-dependent construction of test suites, without additional user-supplied generator functions. We evaluate MLCheck using requirements and data sets from three different application areas (software discrimination, learning on knowledge graphs and security). Our evaluation shows that despite its generality MLCheck can even outperform specialised testing approaches while having a comparable runtime.
Web testing has long been recognized as a notoriously difficult task. Even nowadays, web testing still heavily relies on manual efforts while automated web testing is far from achieving human-level performance. Key challenges in web testing include dynamic content update and deep bugs hiding under complicated user interactions and specific input values, which can only be triggered by certain action sequences in the huge search space. In this paper, we propose WebExplor, an automatic end-to-end web testing framework, to achieve an adaptive exploration of web applications. WebExplor adopts curiosity-driven reinforcement learning to generate high-quality action sequences (test cases) satisfying temporal logical relations. Besides, WebExplor incrementally builds an automaton during the online testing process, which provides high-level guidance to further improve the testing efficiency. We have conducted comprehensive evaluations of WebExplor on six real-world projects, a commercial SaaS web application, and performed an in-the-wild study of the top 50 web applications in the world. The results demonstrate that in most cases WebExplor can achieve a significantly higher failure detection rate, code coverage, and efficiency than existing state-of-the-art web testing techniques. WebExplor also detected 12 previously unknown failures in the commercial web application, which have been confirmed and fixed by the developers. Furthermore, our in-the-wild study further uncovered 3,466 exceptions and errors.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
