3 ms·

>That sounds like empirical data on a subject where I have never heard of their being data c.f. https://userweb.cs.txstate.edu/~rp31/papers/KingHammondChapman

• pfdietz 3y ago
  Formal proof of correctness vs. manually created tests. The comparison should be formal proof of correctness vs. fuzzing using the formal specification as a source of properties to be tested.
  • NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    Fuzzing is a statistical technique that isn't ever going to give you a reassurance that a problem doesn't exist. It's great at giving you counterexamples, so fuzzing is great for discovering vulnerabilities, but unless you're fuzzing your program's entire state-space (which is absolutely impossible for even relatively small programs) then you're not comparing like with like.
    • pfdietz 3y ago
      So? The paper compared formal techniques vs. testing. Why is that suddenly not appropriate if the testing is fuzzing?
    • pydry 3y ago
      >Fuzzing is a statistical technique that isn't ever going to give you a reassurance that a problem doesn't exist. Formal verification doesn't prove that bugs don't exist either, thanks to the aforementioned "bugs in the spec" scenario.