Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2406.03208

Fuzzing Frameworks for Server-side Web Applications: A Survey

I Putu Arya Dharmaadi·Elias Athanasopoulos·Fatih Turkmen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

There are around 5.3 billion Internet users, amounting to 65.7% of the global population, and web technology is the backbone of the services delivered via the Internet. To ensure web applications are free from security-related bugs, web developers test the server-side web applications before deploying them to production. The tests are commonly conducted through the interfaces (i.e., Web API) that the applications expose since they are the entry points to the application. Fuzzing is one of the most promising automated software testing techniques suitable for this task; however, the research on (server-side) web application fuzzing has been rather limited compared to binary fuzzing which is researched extensively. This study reviews the state-of-the-art fuzzing frameworks for testing web applications through web API, identifies open challenges, and gives potential future research. We collect papers from seven online repositories of peer-reviewed articles over the last ten years. Compared to other similar studies, our review focuses more deeply on revealing prior work strategies in generating valid HTTP requests, utilising feedback from the Web Under Tests (WUTs), and expanding input spaces. The findings of this survey indicate that several crucial challenges need to be solved, such as the ineffectiveness of web instrumentation and the complexity of handling microservice applications. Furthermore, some potential research directions are also provided, such as fuzzing for web client programming. Ultimately, this paper aims to give a good starting point for developing a better web fuzzing framework.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I Putu Arya Dharmaadi, Elias Athanasopoulos, Fatih Turkmen. 2024-06-05. Fuzzing Frameworks for Server-side Web Applications: A Survey. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-024-00979-w

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗