Low-Cost and Comprehensive Non-textual Input Fuzzing with LLM-Synthesized Input Generators

January 31, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› USENIX Security Symposium

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Kunpeng Zhang, Zongjie Li, Daoyuan Wu, Shuai Wang, Xin Xia arXiv ID 2501.19282 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 17 Venue USENIX Security Symposium Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Modern software often accepts inputs with highly complex grammars. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown that they can be used to synthesize high-quality natural language text and code that conforms to the grammar of a given input format. Nevertheless, LLMs are often incapable or too costly to generate non-textual outputs, such as images, videos, and PDF files. This limitation hinders the application of LLMs in grammar-aware fuzzing. We present a novel approach to enabling grammar-aware fuzzing over non-textual inputs. We employ LLMs to synthesize and also mutate input generators, in the form of Python scripts, that generate data conforming to the grammar of a given input format. Then, non-textual data yielded by the input generators are further mutated by traditional fuzzers (AFL++) to explore the software input space effectively. Our approach, namely G2FUZZ, features a hybrid strategy that combines a holistic search driven by LLMs and a local search driven by industrial quality fuzzers. Two key advantages are: (1) LLMs are good at synthesizing and mutating input generators and enabling jumping out of local optima, thus achieving a synergistic effect when combined with mutation-based fuzzers; (2) LLMs are less frequently invoked unless really needed, thus significantly reducing the cost of LLM usage. We have evaluated G2FUZZ on a variety of input formats, including TIFF images, MP4 audios, and PDF files. The results show that G2FUZZ outperforms SOTA tools such as AFL++, Fuzztruction, and FormatFuzzer in terms of code coverage and bug finding across most programs tested on three platforms: UNIFUZZ, FuzzBench, and MAGMA.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted