Where Do Smart Contract Security Analyzers Fall Short?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00890v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 03:27:05 GMT
• Title: Where Do Smart Contract Security Analyzers Fall Short?
• Authors: Tamer Abdelaziz, Salma Alsaghir, Karim Ali,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate six widely used analyzers on 653 real-world smart contracts.<n>We then survey 150 professional developers and auditors to understand how they use and perceive these tools.<n>Our findings reveal that excessive false positives, vague explanations, and long analysis times are the main barriers to trust and adoption in practice.
• Score: 1.6058099298620423
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Smart contracts underpin high-value ecosystems such as decentralized finance (DeFi), yet recurring vulnerabilities continue to cause losses worth billions of dollars. Although numerous security analyzers that detect such flaws exist, real-world attacks remain frequent, raising the question of whether these tools are truly effective or simply under-used due to low developer trust. Prior benchmarks have evaluated analyzers on synthetic or vulnerable-only contract datasets, limiting their ability to measure false positives, false negatives, and usability factors that drive adoption. To close this gap, we present a mixed-methods study that combines large-scale benchmarking with practitioner insights. We evaluate six widely used analyzers (i.e., Confuzzius, Dlva, Mythril, Osiris, Oyente, and Slither) on 653 real-world smart contracts that cover three high-impact vulnerability classes from the OWASP Smart Contract Top Ten (i.e., reentrancy, suicidal contract termination, and integer arithmetic errors). Our results show substantial variation in accuracy (F1 = 31.2 to 94.6%), high false-positive rates (up to 32.6%), and runtimes exceeding 700 seconds per contract. We then survey 150 professional developers and auditors to understand how they use and perceive these tools. Our findings reveal that excessive false positives, vague explanations, and long analysis times are the main barriers to trust and adoption in practice. By linking measurable performance gaps to developer perceptions, we provide concrete recommendations for improving the precision, explainability, and usability of smart-contract security analyzers.

Related papers

• SSR: Safeguarding Staking Rewards by Defining and Detecting Logical Defects in DeFi Staking [55.62033436283969]
  Decentralized Finance (DeFi) staking is one of the most prominent applications within the DeFi ecosystem.<n> logical defects in DeFi staking could enable attackers to claim unwarranted rewards.<n>We developed SSR (Safeguarding Staking Reward), a static analysis tool designed to detect logical defects in DeFi staking contracts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T15:01:41Z)
• One Signature, Multiple Payments: Demystifying and Detecting Signature Replay Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts [56.94148977064169]
  lacking checks on signature usage conditions can lead to repeated verifications, increasing the risk of permission abuse and threatening contract assets.<n>We define this issue as the Signature Replay Vulnerability (SRV)<n>From 1,419 audit reports across 37 blockchain security companies, we identified 108 with detailed SRV descriptions and classified five types of SRVs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T09:17:13Z)
• Trace: Securing Smart Contract Repository Against Access Control Vulnerability [58.02691083789239]
  GitHub hosts numerous smart contract repositories containing source code, documentation, and configuration files.<n>Third-party developers often reference, reuse, or fork code from these repositories during custom development.<n>Existing tools for detecting smart contract vulnerabilities are limited in their ability to handle complex repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T05:18:28Z)
• Program Analysis for High-Value Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: Techniques and Insights [0.43975202913406947]
  We present the techniques and insights that have led us to repeatable success in automatically discovering high-value smart contract vulnerabilities.<n>Our vulnerability disclosures have yielded 10 bug bounties, for a total of over $3M, over high-profile deployed code, as well as hundreds of bugs detected in pre-deployment or under-audit code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T09:53:31Z)
• MOS: Towards Effective Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection through Mixture-of-Experts Tuning of Large Language Models [16.16186929130931]
  Smart contract vulnerabilities pose significant security risks to blockchain systems.<n>We propose a smart contract vulnerability detection framework based on mixture-of-experts tuning (MOE-Tuning) of large language models.<n> Experiments show that MOS significantly outperforms existing methods with average improvements of 6.32% in F1 score and 4.80% in accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T16:33:53Z)
• Criticality and Safety Margins for Reinforcement Learning [53.10194953873209]
  We seek to define a criticality framework with both a quantifiable ground truth and a clear significance to users.<n>We introduce true criticality as the expected drop in reward when an agent deviates from its policy for n consecutive random actions.<n>We also introduce the concept of proxy criticality, a low-overhead metric that has a statistically monotonic relationship to true criticality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T21:00:45Z)
• Vulnerability Detection in Ethereum Smart Contracts via Machine Learning: A Qualitative Analysis [0.0]
  We analyze the state of the art in machine-learning vulnerability detection for smart contracts. We discuss best practices to enhance the accuracy, scope, and efficiency of vulnerability detection in smart contracts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-26T10:09:44Z)
• All Your Tokens are Belong to Us: Demystifying Address Verification Vulnerabilities in Solidity Smart Contracts [24.881450403784786]
  Vulnerabilities in the process of address verification can lead to great security issues. We design and implement AVVERIFIER, a lightweight taint analyzer based on static EVM opcode simulation. After a large-scale evaluation of over 5 million smart contracts, we have identified 812 vulnerable smart contracts that were undisclosed by our community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T01:02:07Z)
• 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)
• Vulnerability Scanners for Ethereum Smart Contracts: A Large-Scale Study [44.25093111430751]
  In 2023 alone, such vulnerabilities led to substantial financial losses exceeding a billion of US dollars. Various tools have been developed to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities in smart contracts. This study investigates the gap between the effectiveness of existing security scanners and the vulnerabilities that still persist in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-27T11:26:26Z)
• 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.