Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2412.20866

ContractTrace: Retracing Smart Contract Versions for Security Analyses

Abstract

Due to the inherent immutability of blockchain technology, smart contract updates require their deployment at new addresses rather than modifying existing ones, thus fragmenting version histories and creating critical blind spots for analyses. Indeed, for example, this fragmentation severely hinders security researchers ability to track vulnerability lifecycles across contract versions. While platforms like Etherscan provide detailed information about Ethereum smart contracts, they lack crucial functionality to trace predecessor-successor relationships within smart contract lineages, preventing systematic analysis of how vulnerabilities emerge, propagate, and potentially remain unresolved across versions.To address the challenge of tracing smart contract lineages, we adopt a Design Science Research (DSR) approach and introduce ContractTrace, an automated infrastructure that accurately identifies and links versions of smart contracts into coherent lineages. This tool enables the construction of lineageSet, an up-to-date, open-source dataset specifically designed to support security research on vulnerability, defect or any other property evolution patterns in smart contracts. Through a security-focused case study we demonstrate how ContractTrace reveals previously obscured vulnerability life-cycles within smart contract lineages, tracking whether critical security flaws persist or get resolved across versions. This capability is essential for understanding vulnerability propagation patterns and evaluating the effectiveness of security patches in blockchain environments. In the evaluation phase of our DSR approach, we validated our lineage detection methodology against an alternative approach using Locality-Sensitive Hashing (LSH) to cluster contract versions, confirming the security relevance and accuracy of our technique.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Fatou Ndiaye Mbodji, Vinny Adjibi, Moustapha Awwalou Diouf, Gervais Mendy, Kui Liu, Jacques Klein, Tegawende Bissyande. 2025-07-08. ContractTrace: Retracing Smart Contract Versions for Security Analyses. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20866

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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