research-article

Open access

Language-Based Software Testing

Authors:

Dominic Steinhöfel,

Andreas ZellerAuthors Info & Claims

Communications of the ACM, Volume 67, Issue 4

Pages 80 - 84

https://doi.org/10.1145/3631520

Published: 20 March 2024 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Constraints over grammar elements can make test generation easier than ever.

References

[1]

Aschermann, C. et al. NAUTILUS: Fishing for deep bugs with grammars. In Proceedings of 2019 Network and Distributed System Security Symp.; https://bit.ly/3uRisTx

Google Scholar

[2]

Barr, E.T. et al. The oracle problem in software testing: A survey. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 41, 5 (2014), 507--525

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Böhme, M., Pham, V.T., and Roychoudhury, A. Coverage-based greybox fuzzing as Markov Chain. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conf. Computer and Communications Security (Vienna, Austria, 2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1032--1043

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

Booch, G. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley, 2005.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

Briand, L.C. and Labiche, Y. A UML-based approach to system testing. Intern. Conf. on the Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools. Springer, 2001, 194--208

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

Claessen, K. and Hughes, J. QuickCheck: A lightweight tool for random testing of Haskell programs. In Proceedings of the 5^th ACM SIGPLAN Intern. Conf. Functional Programming. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2000, 268--279

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

Durumeric, Z. et al. The matter of Heartbleed. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conf. Internet Measurement. (Vancouver, BC, Canada). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 475--488

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

Eberlein, M. et al. Semantic debugging. In Proceedings of the 31^st ACM Joint European Softw. Eng. Conf. and Symp. Foundations of Softw. Eng. (San Francisco, CA, USA, 2023), K. Blincoe and P. Tonella, eds. ACM, New York, NY; preprint https://publications.cispa.saarland/3988/

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

Ernst, M.D. et al. Dynamically discovering likely program invariants to support program evolution. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27, 2 (Feb. 2001), 99--123

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Godefroid, P., Kiezun, A., and Levin, M.Y. Grammar-based whitebox fuzzing. In Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Tucson, AZ, USA, 2008). ACM, 206--215

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[11]

Gopinath, R., Mathis, B., and Zeller, A. Mining input grammars from dynamic control flow. In Proceedings of the 2020 Joint Meeting of the European Softw. Eng. Conf. and the ACM SIGSOFT Symp. Foundations of Softw. Eng.; https://publications.cispa.saarland/3101/

Google Scholar

[12]

Holler, C., Herzig, K., and Zeller, A. Fuzzing with code fragments. In Proceedings of the 2012 USENIX Security Symp. USENIX Assoc., Bellevue, WA, 38--38; https://bit.ly/41oj8Mv

Google Scholar

[13]

Höschele, M. and Zeller, A. Mining input grammars from dynamic taints. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM Intern. Conf. Automated Softw. Eng. (Singapore, 2016), 720--725

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[14]

Hunter, T. and de Vynck, G. "most serious security breach ever" is unfolding right now. WSJ (Dec. 20, 2021); https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/12/20/log4j-hack-vulnerability-java/

Google Scholar

[15]

Jones, B., Harman, M., and Danicic, S. Automated Construction of Input and Output Grammars. Technical Report. University of North London, 1999; https://bit.ly/3TqEcQv.

Google Scholar

[16]

Kent, S. Model driven engineering. In Proceedings of the 2002 Intern. Conf. Integrated Formal Methods. Springer, 286--298

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

LibFuzzer; https://llvm.org/docs/LibFuzzer.html.

Google Scholar

[18]

Mathis, B. et al. Parser-directed fuzzing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conf. Programming Language Design and Implementation (Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2019). ACM, 548--560

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

McMinn, P. Search-based software testing: Past, present and future. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2011 4^th Intern. Conf. Softw. Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops. IEEE, 153--163.

Google Scholar

[20]

Miller, B.P., Fredriksen, L., and So, B. An empirical study of the reliability of UNIX utilities. Commun. ACM 33, 12 (Dec. 1990), 32--44

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[21]

Mussa, M., Ouchani, S., Al Sammane, W., and Hamou-Lhadj, A. A survey of model-driven testing techniques. In Proceedings of the 2009 9^th Intern. Conf. Quality Softw., 167--172

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[22]

Perlis, A.J. Epigrams on programming. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 17, 9 (1982), 7--13

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

Pham, V.-T. et al. Smart greybox fuzzing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 47, 9 (2019), 1980--1997

Crossref

Google Scholar

[24]

Rosenblum, D.S. A practical approach to programming with assertions. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21, 1 (1995), 19--31

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[25]

Steinhöfel, D. and Zeller, A. Input invariants. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Softw. Engineering Conf. and Symp. the Foundations of Softw. Eng. (Singapore, 2022). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2022, 583--594

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[26]

Williams, M., Tüxen, M., and Robin Seggelmann, R. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Heartbeat Extension. RFC 6520 IETF, 2012; https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6520/.

Google Scholar

[27]

Załewski, M. American fuzzy lop; https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/

Google Scholar

[28]

Zeller, A. and Hildebrandt, R. Simplifying and isolating failure-inducing input. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28, 2 (Feb. 2002), 183--200

Digital Library

Google Scholar