5 ms·
I'm the GNU coreutils maintainer and have fuzzed them extensively. For example a recent bad bug in TZ handling was found using AFL and fixed by: http://git.sv.g
by pixelbeat__ 9y ago
I'm the GNU coreutils maintainer and have fuzzed them extensively. For example a recent bad bug in TZ handling was found using AFL and fixed by: http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commitdiff;h=94e01571 http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commitdiff;h=94...
We put a lot of effort into the test suite which makes it easy for others to test various experimental security checkers. This has been detailed in the "third party testing" section at: http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/coreutils-testing.html http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/coreutils-testing.html
- oblio 9y agoMy bad, another commenter pointed out that GNU Patch is not part of coreutils. The GNU umbrella is quite wide these days...
- DyslexicAtheist 9y agowow pretty awesome to see such a QA pipeline in Open Source projects. I'm used to this in expensive R&D pipelines in the Telco space[0]. Is there a reason you're not using oss-fuzz[1]? I recently did a lot of work using AFL-fast[2] (poking mostly Perl & Lua and crappy IoT products). My experience is that AFL-fast yielded far better results (in a fraction of the time) when compared to AFL. [0] http://www.syssec-project.eu/m/page-media/3/johansson_tfuzz_icst14.pdf http://www.syssec-project.eu/m/page-media/3/johansson_tfuzz_... [1] https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz [2] https://github.com/mboehme/aflfast https://github.com/mboehme/aflfast
- pixelbeat__ 9y agoaflfast is mentioned in my second link and was the most used fuzzing implementation to find bugs in coreutils. We've had a quick look at using oss-fuzz, which will need a bit of work since it's more suited to libraries rather than standalone utils.