GPTScan: Detecting Logic Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts by Combining GPT with Program Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03314v3
• Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 09:00:43 GMT
• Title: GPTScan: Detecting Logic Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts by Combining GPT with Program Analysis
• Authors: Yuqiang Sun, Daoyuan Wu, Yue Xue, Han Liu, Haijun Wang, Zhengzi Xu, Xiaofei Xie, Yang Liu,
• Abstract summary: We propose GPTScan, the first tool combining GPT with static analysis for smart contract logic vulnerability detection. By breaking down each logic vulnerability type into scenarios and properties, GPTScan matches candidate vulnerabilities with GPT. It effectively detects ground-truth logic vulnerabilities with a recall of over 70%, including 9 new vulnerabilities missed by human auditors.
• Score: 26.081673382969615
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Smart contracts are prone to various vulnerabilities, leading to substantial financial losses over time. Current analysis tools mainly target vulnerabilities with fixed control or data-flow patterns, such as re-entrancy and integer overflow. However, a recent study on Web3 security bugs revealed that about 80% of these bugs cannot be audited by existing tools due to the lack of domain-specific property description and checking. Given recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), it is worth exploring how Generative Pre-training Transformer (GPT) could aid in detecting logicc vulnerabilities. In this paper, we propose GPTScan, the first tool combining GPT with static analysis for smart contract logic vulnerability detection. Instead of relying solely on GPT to identify vulnerabilities, which can lead to high false positives and is limited by GPT's pre-trained knowledge, we utilize GPT as a versatile code understanding tool. By breaking down each logic vulnerability type into scenarios and properties, GPTScan matches candidate vulnerabilities with GPT. To enhance accuracy, GPTScan further instructs GPT to intelligently recognize key variables and statements, which are then validated by static confirmation. Evaluation on diverse datasets with around 400 contract projects and 3K Solidity files shows that GPTScan achieves high precision (over 90%) for token contracts and acceptable precision (57.14%) for large projects like Web3Bugs. It effectively detects ground-truth logic vulnerabilities with a recall of over 70%, including 9 new vulnerabilities missed by human auditors. GPTScan is fast and cost-effective, taking an average of 14.39 seconds and 0.01 USD to scan per thousand lines of Solidity code. Moreover, static confirmation helps GPTScan reduce two-thirds of false positives.

Related papers

• Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Tools for Smart Contracts: How Far Are We? [14.974832502863526]
  In recent years, the importance of smart contract security has been heightened by the increasing number of attacks against them. To address this issue, a multitude of static application security testing (SAST) tools have been proposed for detecting vulnerabilities in smart contracts. In this paper, we propose an up-to-date and fine-grained taxonomy that includes 45 unique vulnerability types for smart contracts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-28T13:40:18Z)
• Shifting the Lens: Detecting Malicious npm Packages using Large Language Models [4.479741014073169]
  Existing malicious code detection techniques often suffer from high misclassification rates. We present SecurityAI, a malicious code review workflow to detect malicious code using ChatGPT. Our baseline comparison demonstrates a 16% and 9% improvement over static analysis in precision and F1 scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T19:10:12Z)
• Evaluation of ChatGPT's Smart Contract Auditing Capabilities Based on Chain of Thought [8.04987973069845]
  This study explores the potential of enhancing smart contract security audits using the GPT-4 model. We utilized a dataset of 35 smart contracts from the SolidiFI-benchmark vulnerability library, containing 732 vulnerabilities. We found GPT-4 performed poorly in detecting smart contract vulnerabilities, with a high Precision of 96.6%, but a low Recall of 37.8%, and an F1-score of 41.1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T10:33:29Z)
• HasTEE+ : Confidential Cloud Computing and Analytics with Haskell [50.994023665559496]
  Confidential computing enables the protection of confidential code and data in a co-tenanted cloud deployment using specialized hardware isolation units called Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) TEEs offer low-level C/C++-based toolchains that are susceptible to inherent memory safety vulnerabilities and lack language constructs to monitor explicit and implicit information-flow leaks. We address the above with HasTEE+, a domain-specific language (cla) embedded in Haskell that enables programming TEEs in a high-level language with strong type-safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T00:56:23Z)
• Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Management [56.4403395100589]
  We explore ChatGPT's capabilities on 6 tasks involving the complete vulnerability management process with a large-scale dataset containing 70,346 samples. One notable example is ChatGPT's proficiency in tasks like generating titles for software bug reports. Our findings reveal the difficulties encountered by ChatGPT and shed light on promising future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T11:01:13Z)
• When ChatGPT Meets Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection: How Far Are We? [34.61179425241671]
  We present an empirical study to investigate the performance of ChatGPT in identifying smart contract vulnerabilities. ChatGPT achieves a high recall rate, but its precision in pinpointing smart contract vulnerabilities is limited. Our research provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of employing large language models, specifically ChatGPT, for the detection of smart contract vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T15:02:44Z)
• Can Large Language Models Find And Fix Vulnerable Software? [0.0]
  GPT-4 identified approximately four times the vulnerabilities than its counterparts. It provided viable fixes for each vulnerability, demonstrating a low rate of false positives. GPT-4's code corrections led to a 90% reduction in vulnerabilities, requiring only an 11% increase in code lines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T19:33:12Z)
• DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Models [92.6951708781736]
  This work proposes a comprehensive trustworthiness evaluation for large language models with a focus on GPT-4 and GPT-3.5. We find that GPT models can be easily misled to generate toxic and biased outputs and leak private information. Our work illustrates a comprehensive trustworthiness evaluation of GPT models and sheds light on the trustworthiness gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T17:24:23Z)
• Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT [65.268245109828]
  This paper investigates the trustworthiness of ChatGPT and GPT-4 regarding logically consistent behaviour. Our findings suggest that while both models appear to show an enhanced language understanding and reasoning ability, they still frequently fall short of generating logically consistent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-11T01:19:01Z)
• Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable [117.23966502293796]
  This work decomposes reliability into four facets: generalizability, fairness, calibration, and factuality. We find that GPT-3 outperforms smaller-scale supervised models by large margins on all these facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T14:52:39Z)
• ESCORT: Ethereum Smart COntRacTs Vulnerability Detection using Deep Neural Network and Transfer Learning [80.85273827468063]
  Existing machine learning-based vulnerability detection methods are limited and only inspect whether the smart contract is vulnerable. We propose ESCORT, the first Deep Neural Network (DNN)-based vulnerability detection framework for smart contracts. We show that ESCORT achieves an average F1-score of 95% on six vulnerability types and the detection time is 0.02 seconds per contract.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T15:04:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.