Paper detail

A Risk-Stratified Benchmark Dataset for Bad Randomness (SWC-120) Vulnerabilities in Ethereum Smart Contracts

Many Ethereum smart contracts rely on block attributes such as block.timestamp or blockhash to generate random numbers for applications like lotteries and games. However, these values are predictable and miner-manipulable, creating the Bad Randomness vulnerability (SWC-120) that has led to real-world exploits. Current detection tools identify only simple patterns and fail to verify whether protective modifiers actually guard vulnerable code. A major obstacle to improving these tools is the lack of large, accurately labeled datasets. This paper presents a benchmark dataset of 1,752 Ethereum smart contracts with validated Bad Randomness vulnerabilities. We developed a five-phase methodology comprising keyword filtering, pattern matching with 58 regular expressions, risk classification, function-level validation, and context analysis. The function-level validation revealed that 49% of contracts initially classified as protected were actually exploitable because modifiers were applied to different functions than those containing vulnerabilities. We classify contracts into four risk levels based on exploitability: HIGH_RISK (no protection), MEDIUM_RISK (miner-exploitable only), LOW_RISK (owner-exploitable only), and SAFE (using Chainlink VRF or commit-reveal). Our dataset is 51 times larger than RNVulDet and the first to provide function-level validation and risk stratification. Evaluation of Slither and Mythril revealed significant detection gaps, as both tools identified none of the vulnerable contracts in our sample, indicating limitations in handling complex randomness patterns. The dataset and validation scripts are publicly available to support future research in smart contract security.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.