Search: “fuzzing”

11 stories

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll Vulnerability 174 Exploit / PoC 34 Ransomware 22 Malware 11 Research 11 Data breach 10 Industry 9 Policy & legal 9 Tools 5 Advisory 5 AI safety & security 5 AI tools & infra 2 Threat actor 2 Phishing & fraud 1

SeverityAll critical 143 high 51 medium 76 low 17 info 15

Testing race conditions with memory access tracing and stack-based delay injection

Google Project Zero released MAccConc, Linux kernel tooling that traces memory accesses to explore and test race condition interleavings.

A Google Project Zero researcher published MAccConc (Memory Access Concurrency), tooling for exploring possible interleavings of multithreaded test cases in the Linux kernel, available on GitHub. The tools use KCOV with ASAN outline-mode instrumentation to record per-access memory traces, enabling automatic testing of all A-B-A interleavings plus terminal and GUI explorers for manual analysis. The work targets confirming race condition candidates, building reliable regression tests, and enabling concurrency fuzzing, drawing on ideas from SKI and Ned Williamson's sockfuzzer.

Google Project ZeroSep 8, 07:00 UTC · 8d agoResearch1

When LLM Decompilers Recompile More and Preserve Less

Researchers show LLM decompiler outputs can recompile yet diverge behaviorally, proposing the Decompile-Diverge fuzzing oracle to catch hidden changes.

The paper demonstrates that LLM-based decompilers can produce code that recompiles and passes all shipped tests yet diverges on other legitimate inputs—4.9% overall and up to 13% for one system—and can make disclosed vulnerabilities vanish without a visible crash. Across 300 real GitHub functions and 287 CVE-grounded functions, a refinement LLM lifted Ghidra's build rate from 75% to 90% while Matched rate fell from 74% to 62%, with up to one tenth of vulnerabilities showing Crash Absence. Decompile-Diverge detects these gaps by synthesizing drivers, growing fuzzing corpora from the reference, and rerunning decompiled code on identical inputs.

arXiv cs.CRSep 4, 17:16 UTC · 12d agoResearch

1Password's AI patching benchmark is misleading

Trail of Bits reanalysis says 1Password's 26% AI clean-fix rate is misleading; 86% of eligible patches blocked exploits.

Trail of Bits critiques 1Password's FLAWED AI patching benchmark, arguing its 26% clean-fix headline mixes trials where agents were instructed to apply wrong fixes (22% of data) with trials that prohibited compiling or testing (36%). Restricting to reasonable conditions, 2,634 of 3,067 patches (86%) blocked the supplied exploit. Trail of Bits also reports 12.5% of 2,265 developer first fixes failed in its own 2024-2026 assessments, and released post-patch-validation and review-walkthrough agent skills.

Lobsters · securitySep 15, 20:03 UTC · 1d agoResearch

Code review used to be the only way to catch these bugs

Palo Alto Networks' Unit 42 says its NOVA system found 14,090 vulnerabilities in 3,915 open-source projects, mostly non-crashing bugs like access control flaws.

Unit 42's NOVA system analyzed 3,915 open-source projects over two months and reported 14,090 validated vulnerabilities, only 85 of which matched previously documented findings. 92% of findings fell outside fuzzing-friendly categories, clustering instead in access control, path traversal, injection, prototype pollution, and SSRF; language ecosystems showed distinct weakness profiles. Of 5,421 supply-chain findings, 1,280 were flaws in dependencies while 4,141 were downstream exposures, 2,776 validated with working proof-of-concepts. Unit 42 warned that faster discovery combined with an average 55-day patch deployment window has collapsed the patch-to-exploit gap.

Help Net SecurityAug 25, 18:03 UTC · 22d agoResearch

Harnessing LLMs for Automating BOLA Detection

Unit 42's BOLABuster methodology uses LLMs to automate detection of broken object-level authorization vulnerabilities, uncovering flaws in Grafana, Harbor, and Easy!Appointments.

Palo Alto Unit 42 details BOLABuster, a methodology combining large language models with heuristics to automate detection of broken object-level authorization (BOLA) flaws, which traditional fuzzing and static analysis struggle to find. The approach uses LLM reasoning to understand application logic, map endpoint dependency relationships, and generate and interpret test cases. It found CVE-2024-1313 in Grafana, CVE-2024-22278 in Harbor, and 15 CVEs in Easy!Appointments. The team is continuing to hunt for BOLAs in open-source and internal projects.

Palo Alto Unit 42Aug 17, 12:34 UTC · Aug 17, 2026Research CVE-2024-1313 CVE-2024-22278 CVE-2023-3285+14 CVEs

2017 Security Protocols Workshop

Schneier on SecurityJan 27, 14:18 UTC · Jan 27, 2020Research

IntentFuzz: A Protocol-Aware Fuzzer for Automated Invariant Violation Detection in Intent-Based Cross-Chain Bridges

IntentFuzz protocol-aware fuzzer recovers bridge structure from unannotated Solidity and confirmed 22 invariant violations across 24 real-world deployments.

IntentFuzz formalizes a taxonomy separating invariant violations from settlement exposures in intent-based cross-chain bridges, then recovers a bridge's intent structure and deposit/fill function roles from unannotated Solidity source. It classified deposit and fill functions with 100% recall and 82% combined precision, and achieved 100% recall and precision on 23 planted-bug mutants. Across 24 real-world deployments it confirmed 17 genuine invariant violations with heuristic-only input generation, rising to 22 with its LLM-assisted tier, spanning eight vulnerable GitHub repositories with findings reproducible against public deployed bytecode.

arXiv cs.CRSep 11, 16:03 UTC · 5d agoResearch1

From Specs to Apps: Verifying and Monitoring Models of Signal and WhatsApp

Researchers use the SpecMon runtime monitor to verify WhatsApp Web and Signal Desktop against formal Signal protocol models, finding undocumented libsignal fork differences.

The paper applies SpecMon, a runtime monitoring tool, to check whether executions of WhatsApp Web and Signal Desktop conform to formal models of the Signal protocol. The authors instrument both applications and build Tamarin-compatible multiset-rewrite models, including the first model of WhatsApp Web's implementation and the most detailed model to date of Signal's original protocol. They verify authentication and secrecy properties for core Signal protocol components, show monitoring detects deliberately injected faults with low overhead, and identify previously undocumented behavioral differences between the original libsignal library and WhatsApp's fork.

arXiv cs.CRSep 10, 17:48 UTC · 6d agoResearch