Best optimizations to pass str(n)cmp(...) comparisons with static data ? #2194
Unanswered
alexandredoyen29
asked this question in
Q&A
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
|
cmplog is better 80% of the time, so of course compcov sometimes is better :) but best is to use both. (but ensure you have a dedicated -M main running that is neither cmplog nor compcov). LTO works with compcov and cmplog as you can see when reading the output of |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
|
Thank you for your answer ! So, you suggest to have three fuzzing processes :
So, at the end, I collect output of the main fuzzing process... Have a nice day ;) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi everyone !
Currently, I am working on detection of static data comparisons from program input with functions like strcmp().
My goal is to use AFL++ to infer these static data.
So, I tried different combinations of instrumentation for my target : Cmplog, LAF-Intel and LTO.
But, I found sometimes LAF-Intel is better than Cmplog, and sometimes not in term of inference of static strings.
So, regarding to your experience, when an optimization is better than an other ?
Furthermore, is it possible to combine LAF-Intel with LTO (By using
afl-clang-ltoto compile my target) ? I saw it is possible with Cmplog, but I don't know if it is possible with LAF-Intel...Have a nice day ;)
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions