4 ms·

Yea the article is pretty content free. It claims at the end that a future post will contain actual content.

by readams 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I've seen that pattern a few times lately. I never used to see it. I consider it an absolute "don't bother to read this or the follow-up" indicator. Thanks for saving my time.
- moyix 10y ago
  If you want to skip ahead to the full content, you can read the paper :) I also don't think it's fair to say that this is content-free – it's setting up the setting and motivation. It's not immediately clear why someone would want to inject bugs (a common reaction I got when describing the problem to people was "that's evil" or "why would anyone want to do that?!").
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Fair enough. I'll admit that I hadn't read this post when I wrote my comment - you were getting vented on based on my annoyance from another article I had read. (Sorry...)
  - gohrt 10y ago
    Don't title your article "How" if the body doesn't explain how.
    - moyix 10y ago
      That's a fair point. Originally the title was meant for the entire series, but the motivation piece got too long and I decided to split them up.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    I think I recall you're both seeding bugs and running bug-hunters on it. If so, which tools have been finding the most? And, if it takes a combo of them, which combo of the set you've testing have been most effective? Note: Especially for severe ones that can lead to code injection.
    - moyix 10y ago
      Sorry to disappoint, but we're remaining coy on exactly which tools we tested for now – the evaluation was to demonstrate the initial feasibility, rather than to pick on anyone. We'll be releasing the corpora from the paper soon so people can do their own comparisons. And the code for the bug injection itself should be released a bit after that, so that it can be extended and built upon. So far some of the things you'd expect hold true: fuzzing doesn't tend to reach bugs deep in the program, symbolic execution has trouble with path explosion and one-way functions, etc. You can see those results in the tables in section VI.D of the paper.
Someone 10y ago
They changed the article, and removed the link to the paper: http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2016/papers/0824a110.pdf http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2016/papers/0824a110.pdf

Yea the article is pretty content free. It claims at the end that a future post will contain actual content.

by readams 10y ago

Yea the article is pretty content free. It claims at the end that a future post will contain actual content.

I've seen that pattern a few times lately. I never used to see it. I consider it an absolute "don't bother to read this or the follow-up" indicator. Thanks for saving my time.

moyix 10y ago
If you want to skip ahead to the full content, you can read the paper :) I also don't think it's fair to say that this is content-free – it's setting up the setting and motivation. It's not immediately clear why someone would want to inject bugs (a common reaction I got when describing the problem to people was "that's evil" or "why would anyone want to do that?!").
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Fair enough. I'll admit that I hadn't read this post when I wrote my comment - you were getting vented on based on my annoyance from another article I had read. (Sorry...)
- gohrt 10y ago
  Don't title your article "How" if the body doesn't explain how.
  - moyix 10y ago
    That's a fair point. Originally the title was meant for the entire series, but the motivation piece got too long and I decided to split them up.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I think I recall you're both seeding bugs and running bug-hunters on it. If so, which tools have been finding the most? And, if it takes a combo of them, which combo of the set you've testing have been most effective? Note: Especially for severe ones that can lead to code injection.
  - moyix 10y ago
    Sorry to disappoint, but we're remaining coy on exactly which tools we tested for now – the evaluation was to demonstrate the initial feasibility, rather than to pick on anyone. We'll be releasing the corpora from the paper soon so people can do their own comparisons. And the code for the bug injection itself should be released a bit after that, so that it can be extended and built upon. So far some of the things you'd expect hold true: fuzzing doesn't tend to reach bugs deep in the program, symbolic execution has trouble with path explosion and one-way functions, etc. You can see those results in the tables in section VI.D of the paper.

Someone 10y ago

They changed the article, and removed the link to the paper: http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2016/papers/0824a110.pdf http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2016/papers/0824a110.pdf