Proceedings of the 2nd International Fuzzing Workshop 2023
DOI: 10.1145/3605157.3605170
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Grammar Mutation for Testing Input Parsers (Registered Report)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, we did not discover some parser bugs triggered by malformed policies because our test generators create abstract syntax trees of Cedar policies and thus are limited to produce only syntactically correct policies. We are investigating grammar-based mutation testing [3] to avoid missing this type of bug in the future.…”
Section: Experiencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, we did not discover some parser bugs triggered by malformed policies because our test generators create abstract syntax trees of Cedar policies and thus are limited to produce only syntactically correct policies. We are investigating grammar-based mutation testing [3] to avoid missing this type of bug in the future.…”
Section: Experiencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has evolved to include feedback (coverage-guided) [8,18,48] and smart search heuristics (search-based fuzzing) [7,46]. Some fuzzing works at the specification level (often using an input grammar) [6,21,59] while the majority of fuzzing techniques are greybox (using code-guided metrics to diversify coverage of program paths in the code) [7,8,18,46,48]. Finally, scenario-based approaches represent an alternative approach for specification-based fuzzing [10,22,61].…”
Section: Test Fuzzermentioning
confidence: 99%