3.8 Proceedings Paper

Empirical Review of Automated Analysis Tools on 47,587 Ethereum Smart Contracts

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1145/3377811.3380364

关键词

Smart contracts; Solidity; Ethereum; Blockchain; Tools; Debugging; Testing; Reproducible Bugs

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the QualiChain project [822404]
  2. FCT, Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [UIDB/50021/2020, PTDC/CCI-COM/29300/2017]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/CCI-COM/29300/2017] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the last few years, there has been substantial research on automated analysis, testing, and debugging of Ethereum smart contracts. However, it is not trivial to compare and reproduce that research. To address this, we present an empirical evaluation of 9 state-of-the-art automated analysis tools using two new datasets: i) a dataset of 69 annotated vulnerable smart contracts that can be used to evaluate the precision of analysis tools; and ii) a dataset with all the smart contracts in the Ethereum Blockchain that have Solidity source code available on Etherscan (a total of 47,518 contracts). The datasets are part of SmartBugs, a new extendable execution framework that we created to facilitate the integration and comparison between multiple analysis tools and the analysis of Ethereum smart contracts. We used SmartBugs to execute the 9 automated analysis tools on the two datasets. In total, we ran 428,337 analyses that took approximately 564 days and 3 hours, being the largest experimental setup to date both in the number of tools and in execution time. We found that only 42% of the vulnerabilities from our annotated dataset are detected by all the tools, with the tool Mythril having the higher accuracy (27%). When considering the largest dataset, we observed that 97% of contracts are tagged as vulnerable, thus suggesting a considerable number of false positives. Indeed, only a small number of vulnerabilities (and of only two categories) were detected simultaneously by four or more tools.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据