Open Access
Issue
ITM Web Conf.
Volume 12, 2017
The 4th Annual International Conference on Information Technology and Applications (ITA 2017)
Article Number 03025
Number of page(s) 6
Section Session 3: Computer
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20171203025
Published online 05 September 2017
  1. King, James C. “Symbolic execution and program testing.” Communications of the ACM 19.7 (1976): 385–394. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Stephens, Nick, et al. “Driller: Augmenting Fuzzing Through Selective Symbolic Execution.” Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Seo, Hyunmin, and Sunghun Kim. “How we get there: a context-guided search strategy in concolic testing.” Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. Godefroid, Patrice, Nils Klarlund, and Koushik Sen. “DART: directed automated random testing.” ACM Sigplan Notices. Vol. 40. No. 6. ACM, 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Park, Sangmin, et al. “CarFast: achieving higher statement coverage faster.” Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  6. De Moura, Leonardo, and Nikolaj Bjørner. “Satisfiability modulo theories: introduction and applications.” Communications of the ACM 54.9 (2011): 69–77. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. CREST. Automatic test generation tool for C. https://code.google.com/p/crest/. [Google Scholar]
  8. A. V. Aho, M. S. Lam, R. Sethi, and J. D. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison Wesley, 2nd edition, Sept. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  9. Avgerinos, Thanassis, et al. “Enhancing symbolic execution with veritesting.” Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cadar, Cristian, and Koushik Sen. “Symbolic execution for software testing: three decades later.” Communications of the ACM 56.2 (2013): 82–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Majumdar, Rupak, and Koushik Sen. “Hybrid concolic testing.” 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07). IEEE, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chipounov, Vitaly, Volodymyr Kuznetsov, and George Candea. “S2E: a platform for in-vivo multi-path analysis of software systems.” ACM SIGPLAN Notices 46.3 (2011): 265–278. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ciortea, Liviu, et al. “Cloud9: a software testing service.” ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 43.4 (2010): 5–10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Godefroid, Patrice, Michael Y. Levin, and David A. Molnar. “Automated Whitebox Fuzz Testing.” NDSS. Vol. 8. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  15. Caselden, Dan, et al. Transformation-aware exploit generation using a HI-CFG. No. UCB/EECS-2013-85. California Univ Berkeley Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Babic, Domagoj, and Alan Hu. “Calysto.” 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cadar, Cristian, Daniel Dunbar, and Dawson R. Engler. “KLEE: Unassisted and Automatic Generation of High-Coverage Tests for Complex Systems Programs.” OSDI. Vol. 8. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sen, Koushik, Darko Marinov, and Gul Agha. “CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C.” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 30. No. 5. ACM, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cadar, Cristian, et al. “EXE: automatically generating inputs of death.” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 12.2 (2008): 10. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cha, Sang Kil, Maverick Woo, and David Brumley. “Program-adaptive mutational fuzzing.” 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. Xie, Tao, et al. “Fitness-guided path exploration in dynamic symbolic execution.” 2009 IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems & Networks. IEEE, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  22. McMinn, Phil. “Search-based software test data generation: A survey.” Software Testing Verification and Reliability 14.2 (2004): 105–156. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Burnim, Jacob, and Koushik Sen. “Heuristics for scalable dynamic test generation.” Proceedings of the 2008 23rd IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tillmann, Nikolai, and Jonathan De Halleux. “Pex–white box test generation for. net.” International conference on tests and proofs. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  25. Boonstoppel, Peter, Cristian Cadar, and Dawson Engler. “RWset: Attacking path explosion in constraint-based test generation.” International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  26. Clarke, Lori A. “A program testing system.” Proceedings of the 1976 annual conference. ACM, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cadar, Cristian, and Dawson Engler. “Execution generated test cases: How to make systems code crash itself.” International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tracey, Nigel, John Clark, and Keith Mander. “Automated program flaw finding using simulated annealing.” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 23. No. 2. ACM, 1998. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Shoshitaishvili, Yan, et al. “SOK:(State of) The Art of War: Offensive Techniques in Binary Analysis.” Security and Privacy (SP), 2016 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 2016. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.