BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Brendan Dolan-Gavitt

Brendan Dolan-Gavitt contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Cryptography and SecurityArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Evaluating Synthetic Bugs

Fuzz testing has been used to find bugs in programs since the 1990s, but despite decades of dedicated research, there is still no consensus on which fuzzing techniques work best. One reason for this is the paucity of ground truth: bugs in real programs with known root causes and triggering inputs are difficult to collect at a meaningful scale. Bug injection technologies that add synthetic bugs into real programs seem to offer a solution, but the differences in finding these synthetic bugs versus organic bugs have not previously been explored at a large scale. Using over 80 years of CPU time, we ran eight fuzzers across 20 targets from the Rode0day bug-finding competition and the LAVA-M corpus. Experiments were standardized with respect to compute resources and metrics gathered. These experiments show differences in fuzzer performance as well as the impact of various configuration options. For instance, it is clear that integrating symbolic execution with mutational fuzzing is very effective and that using dictionaries improves performance. Other conclusions are less clear-cut; for example, no one fuzzer beat all others on all tests. It is noteworthy that no fuzzer found any organic bugs (i.e., one reported in a CVE), despite 50 such bugs being available for discovery in the fuzzing corpus. A close analysis of results revealed a possible explanation: a dramatic difference between where synthetic and organic bugs live with respect to the ''main path'' discovered by fuzzers. We find that recent updates to bug injection systems have made synthetic bugs more difficult to discover, but they are still significantly easier to find than organic bugs in our target programs. Finally, this study identifies flaws in bug injection techniques and suggests a number of axes along which synthetic bugs should be improved.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models

Human developers can produce code with cybersecurity bugs. Can emerging 'smart' code completion tools help repair those bugs? In this work, we examine the use of large language models (LLMs) for code (such as OpenAI's Codex and AI21's Jurassic J-1) for zero-shot vulnerability repair. We investigate challenges in the design of prompts that coax LLMs into generating repaired versions of insecure code. This is difficult due to the numerous ways to phrase key information - both semantically and syntactically - with natural languages. We perform a large scale study of five commercially available, black-box, "off-the-shelf" LLMs, as well as an open-source model and our own locally-trained model, on a mix of synthetic, hand-crafted, and real-world security bug scenarios. Our experiments demonstrate that while the approach has promise (the LLMs could collectively repair 100% of our synthetically generated and hand-crafted scenarios), a qualitative evaluation of the model's performance over a corpus of historical real-world examples highlights challenges in generating functionally correct code.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Pop Quiz! Can a Large Language Model Help With Reverse Engineering?

Large language models (such as OpenAI's Codex) have demonstrated impressive zero-shot multi-task capabilities in the software domain, including code explanation. In this work, we examine if this ability can be used to help with reverse engineering. Specifically, we investigate prompting Codex to identify the purpose, capabilities, and important variable names or values from code, even when the code is produced through decompilation. Alongside an examination of the model's responses in answering open-ended questions, we devise a true/false quiz framework to characterize the performance of the language model. We present an extensive quantitative analysis of the measured performance of the language model on a set of program purpose identification and information extraction tasks: of the 136,260 questions we posed, it answered 72,754 correctly. A key takeaway is that while promising, LLMs are not yet ready for zero-shot reverse engineering.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access