跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1238新增论文
+943其中 AI 相关
+88已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 03:54 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 12:13各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 04:32 — 2026-11-06 04:32(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-06 03:54最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 12:13库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

15,949 已收录论文13,765 AI 相关3,571 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 03:52(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2512.04611

PBFuzz: Agentic Directed Fuzzing for PoV Generation

Haochen Zeng, Andrew Bao, Jiajun Cheng, Chengyu Song

Proof-of-Vulnerability (PoV) input generation is a critical task in software security and supports downstream applications such as bug reproduction and patch validation. Generating a PoV input requires solving two sets of constraints: (1) reachability constraints for reaching vulnerable code locations, and (2) triggering constraints for activating the target vulnerability. Existing approaches, including directed greybox fuzzing and LLM-assisted fuzzing, struggle to efficiently satisfy these constraints. This work presents an agentic method that mimics human experts. Human analysts iteratively study code to extract semantic reachability and triggering constraints, form hypotheses about PoV triggering strategies, encode them as test inputs, and refine their understanding using debugging feedback. We automate this process with an agentic directed fuzzing framework called PBFuzz. PBFuzz tackles four challenges in agentic PoV generation: autonomous code reasoning for semantic constraint extraction, custom program-analysis tools for targeted inference, persistent memory to avoid hypothesis drift, and property-based testing for efficient constraint solving while preserving input structure. Experiments on the Magma benchmark show strong results. PBFuzz triggered 57 vulnerabilities, surpassing all baselines, and uniquely triggered 17 vulnerabilities not exposed by existing fuzzers. PBFuzz achieved this within a 30-minute budget per target, whereas conventional approaches were allotted 24 hours. Median time-to-exposure was 339 seconds for PBFuzz versus 8,680 seconds for AFL++ with CmpLog, giving a 25.6x efficiency improvement with an API cost of 1.83 USD per vulnerability. In real-world applications, PBFuzz reproduced three FFmpeg 1-day CVEs that had no public PoVs and identified three previously unknown Bento4 vulnerabilities.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CR · cs.SE
arXiv ↗PDF ↗