Demystifying and Detecting Cryptographic Defects in Ethereum Smart Contracts

August 09, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Conference on Software Engineering

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Jiashuo Zhang, Yiming Shen, Jiachi Chen, Jianzhong Su, Yanlin Wang, Ting Chen, Jianbo Gao, Zhong Chen arXiv ID 2408.04939 Category cs.CR: Cryptography & Security Cross-listed cs.SE Citations 3 Venue International Conference on Software Engineering Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Ethereum has officially provided a set of system-level cryptographic APIs to enhance smart contracts with cryptographic capabilities. These APIs have been utilized in over 10% of Ethereum transactions, motivating developers to implement various on-chain cryptographic tasks, such as digital signatures. However, since developers may not always be cryptographic experts, their ad-hoc and potentially defective implementations could compromise the theoretical guarantees of cryptography, leading to real-world security issues. To mitigate this threat, we conducted the first study aimed at demystifying and detecting cryptographic defects in smart contracts. Through the analysis of 2,406 real-world security reports, we defined nine types of cryptographic defects in smart contracts with detailed descriptions and practical detection patterns. Based on this categorization, we proposed CrySol, a fuzzing-based tool to automate the detection of cryptographic defects in smart contracts. It combines transaction replaying and dynamic taint analysis to extract fine-grained crypto-related semantics and employs crypto-specific strategies to guide the test case generation process. Furthermore, we collected a large-scale dataset containing 25,745 real-world crypto-related smart contracts and evaluated CrySol's effectiveness on it. The result demonstrated that CrySol achieves an overall precision of 95.4% and a recall of 91.2%. Notably, CrySol revealed that 5,847 (22.7%) out of 25,745 smart contracts contain at least one cryptographic defect, highlighting the prevalence of these defects.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Cryptography & Security

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted