Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2308.03314

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

Yuqiang Sun·Daoyuan Wu·Yue Xue·Han Liu·Haijun Wang·Zhengzi Xu·Xiaofei Xie·Yang Liu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.CRcs.AIcs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yuqiang Sun, Daoyuan Wu, Yue Xue, Han Liu, Haijun Wang, Zhengzi Xu, Xiaofei Xie, Yang Liu. 2024-05-06. GPTScan: Detecting Logic Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts by Combining GPT with Program Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597503.3639117

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Attack Tree Distance: a practical examination of tree difference measurement within cyber security

Attack trees are a popular threat modeling method. In practice, there is often a need to compare attack tree models produced by human experts, based on both the structure of the tree and the meaning of the node labels. In this work, we investigate the problem of comparing attack trees and measuring their similarity. We define five different measures for measuring the distance between two attack trees: Label Distance (LD), Tree Edit Distance (TED), Radical Distance (RD), Multiset Distance (MSD) and Weighted Sum Distance (WSD). We further propose a repeatable method of both theoretical and experimental attack tree distance measures validation. Our theoretical validation consists of a series of basic transformations to evaluate the behavior of distance measures with respect to specific types of transformations that may appear between two attack trees. To experimentally validate our distance measures, we designed and executed a human study ($n=39$) to collect a dataset of attack trees to be used for evaluation and comparison of the measures. From our theoretical and experimental results, we find that applying semantic similarity as a means of comparing node labels is a valid approach. Further, we find four of the five attack tree distance measures are valid approaches in certain, varying circumstances. Our results suggest that these methods can already be used to identify similar real-world attack trees. Overall, this work lays the groundwork for improved threat model analysis, validation of AI-generated attack trees, and future research into threat similarity measurement in cybersecurity.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Probabilistic Modeling of Jailbreak on Multimodal LLMs: From Quantification to Application

Recently, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated their superior ability in understanding multimodal content. However, they remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, which exploit weaknesses in their safety alignment to generate harmful responses. Previous studies categorize jailbreaks as successful or failed based on whether responses contain malicious content. However, given the stochastic nature of MLLM responses, this binary classification of an input's ability to jailbreak MLLMs is inappropriate. Derived from this viewpoint, we introduce jailbreak probability to quantify the jailbreak potential of an input, which represents the likelihood that MLLMs generated a malicious response when prompted with this input. We approximate this probability through multiple queries to MLLMs. After modeling the relationship between input hidden states and their corresponding jailbreak probability using Jailbreak Probability Prediction Network (JPPN), we use continuous jailbreak probability for optimization. Specifically, we propose Jailbreak-Probability-based Attack (JPA) that optimizes adversarial perturbations on input image to maximize jailbreak probability, and further enhance it as Multimodal JPA (MJPA) by including monotonic text rephrasing. To counteract attacks, we also propose Jailbreak-Probability-based Finetuning (JPF), which minimizes jailbreak probability through MLLM parameter updates. Extensive experiments show that (1) (M)JPA yields significant improvements when attacking a wide range of models under both white and black box settings. (2) JPF vastly reduces jailbreaks by at most over 60\%. Both of the above results demonstrate the significance of introducing jailbreak probability to make nuanced distinctions among input jailbreak abilities.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Differential Fault Analysis of Lilliput under Random-Location Nibble Faults

Differential fault analysis (DFA) is an important technique for evaluating the implementation-level security of block ciphers. Many DFA attacks assume that the adversary can inject faults into a selected internal word, nibble, or branch. Such fixed-location assumptions are convenient for deriving key-recovery equations, but they may overestimate the adversary's spatial control and may obscure the branch-dependent leakage behavior of multi-branch structures. In this paper, we study the lightweight block cipher Lilliput under a fixed-timing full-branch random-location nibble fault model. The attacker is assumed to induce a nonzero nibble fault in round 27, while the affected branch is randomly distributed over all sixteen state branches and is unknown to the attacker. The main challenge is to convert faulty ciphertexts with unknown injection locations into usable key-recovery constraints. We analyze the fault propagation induced by the EGFN structure of Lilliput and derive ciphertext-difference conditions for identifying the injected branch. The proposed branch-identification approach has a DDT-based combinatorial estimate of at least 99.9909% and achieves 99.9983% accuracy in 2^{20} random fault simulations. Once the fault branch is determined, we classify the corresponding propagation patterns according to whether the injected fault value and the intermediate S-box output difference can be uniquely determined. For each case, we derive DDT-based constraints on the last-round and penultimate-round subkeys and combine multiple faulty ciphertexts by candidate-set intersection. Simulation experiments over 2^{15} trials show that the attack reaches key-recovery success rates of over 90%, 95%, and 99% with 32, 36, and 46 faulty ciphertexts, respectively. These results show that Lilliput exhibits exploitable branch-dependent leakage even when the attacker cannot control the exact fault location.

cs.CR↗