仲裁:用户导向的API误用检测

Ziyang Li, Aravind Machiry, Binghong Chen, M. Naik, Ke Wang, Le Song
{"title":"仲裁:用户导向的API误用检测","authors":"Ziyang Li, Aravind Machiry, Binghong Chen, M. Naik, Ke Wang, Le Song","doi":"10.1109/SP40001.2021.00090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Software APIs exhibit rich diversity and complexity which not only renders them a common source of programming errors but also hinders program analysis tools for checking them. Such tools either expect a precise API specification, which requires program analysis expertise, or presume that correct API usages follow simple idioms that can be automatically mined from code, which suffers from poor accuracy. We propose a new approach that allows regular programmers to find API misuses. Our approach interacts with the user to classify valid and invalid usages of each target API method. It minimizes user burden by employing an active learning algorithm that ranks API usages by their likelihood of being invalid. We implemented our approach in a tool called ARBITRAR for C/C++ programs, and applied it to check the uses of 18 API methods in 21 large real-world programs, including OpenSSL and Linux Kernel. Within just 3 rounds of user interaction on average per API method, ARBITRAR found 40 new bugs, with patches accepted for 18 of them. Moreover, ARBITRAR finds all known bugs reported by a state-of-the-art tool APISAN in a benchmark suite comprising 92 bugs with a false positive rate of only 51.5% compared to APISAN’s 87.9%.","PeriodicalId":6786,"journal":{"name":"2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","volume":"8 1","pages":"1400-1415"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ARBITRAR: User-Guided API Misuse Detection\",\"authors\":\"Ziyang Li, Aravind Machiry, Binghong Chen, M. Naik, Ke Wang, Le Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SP40001.2021.00090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Software APIs exhibit rich diversity and complexity which not only renders them a common source of programming errors but also hinders program analysis tools for checking them. Such tools either expect a precise API specification, which requires program analysis expertise, or presume that correct API usages follow simple idioms that can be automatically mined from code, which suffers from poor accuracy. We propose a new approach that allows regular programmers to find API misuses. Our approach interacts with the user to classify valid and invalid usages of each target API method. It minimizes user burden by employing an active learning algorithm that ranks API usages by their likelihood of being invalid. We implemented our approach in a tool called ARBITRAR for C/C++ programs, and applied it to check the uses of 18 API methods in 21 large real-world programs, including OpenSSL and Linux Kernel. Within just 3 rounds of user interaction on average per API method, ARBITRAR found 40 new bugs, with patches accepted for 18 of them. Moreover, ARBITRAR finds all known bugs reported by a state-of-the-art tool APISAN in a benchmark suite comprising 92 bugs with a false positive rate of only 51.5% compared to APISAN’s 87.9%.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"1400-1415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40001.2021.00090\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40001.2021.00090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

软件api表现出丰富的多样性和复杂性,这不仅使它们成为编程错误的常见来源,而且阻碍了程序分析工具对它们进行检查。这类工具要么需要精确的API规范,这需要程序分析专业知识,要么假定正确的API用法遵循可以从代码中自动挖掘的简单习惯用法,而这种习惯用法的准确性很差。我们提出了一种新方法,允许普通程序员发现API的误用。我们的方法与用户交互,对每个目标API方法的有效和无效用法进行分类。它采用主动学习算法,根据API使用无效的可能性对其进行排序,从而最大限度地减少用户负担。我们在C/ c++程序的一个名为ARBITRAR的工具中实现了我们的方法,并应用它来检查21个大型现实世界程序(包括OpenSSL和Linux Kernel)中18种API方法的使用情况。在平均每个API方法的3轮用户交互中,ARBITRAR发现了40个新bug,其中18个已经接受了补丁。此外,ARBITRAR在一个包含92个错误的基准套件中发现了由最先进的工具APISAN报告的所有已知错误,假阳性率仅为51.5%,而APISAN的假阳性率为87.9%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ARBITRAR: User-Guided API Misuse Detection
Software APIs exhibit rich diversity and complexity which not only renders them a common source of programming errors but also hinders program analysis tools for checking them. Such tools either expect a precise API specification, which requires program analysis expertise, or presume that correct API usages follow simple idioms that can be automatically mined from code, which suffers from poor accuracy. We propose a new approach that allows regular programmers to find API misuses. Our approach interacts with the user to classify valid and invalid usages of each target API method. It minimizes user burden by employing an active learning algorithm that ranks API usages by their likelihood of being invalid. We implemented our approach in a tool called ARBITRAR for C/C++ programs, and applied it to check the uses of 18 API methods in 21 large real-world programs, including OpenSSL and Linux Kernel. Within just 3 rounds of user interaction on average per API method, ARBITRAR found 40 new bugs, with patches accepted for 18 of them. Moreover, ARBITRAR finds all known bugs reported by a state-of-the-art tool APISAN in a benchmark suite comprising 92 bugs with a false positive rate of only 51.5% compared to APISAN’s 87.9%.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A2L: Anonymous Atomic Locks for Scalability in Payment Channel Hubs High-Assurance Cryptography in the Spectre Era An I/O Separation Model for Formal Verification of Kernel Implementations Trust, But Verify: A Longitudinal Analysis Of Android OEM Compliance and Customization HackEd: A Pedagogical Analysis of Online Vulnerability Discovery Exercises
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1