Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.20698

Buzz to Boom: Detecting Message Progression Vulnerabilities in Electron Applications via Segmented Directed Fuzzing

Jianjia Yu·Zhengyu Liu·Ziyang Li·Yu Sun·Yinzhi Cao
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Electron is a popular framework for building cross-platform desktop applications using web technologies. Such applications consist of multiple processes with different privilege levels that communicate via message passing. When inter-process messages carry attacker-controlled inputs, they can propagate across processes and reach privileged APIs, e.g., command execution. Such a message propagation behavior is characterized as Message Progression Vulnerabilities (MPVs). The exploitation of MPVs is challenging because it often requires multiple steps, e.g., first arbitrary code execution in one process via message passing, and then command injection in another process using another message crafted in the first process. To our knowledge, existing works on Electron security only study unsafe configurations and malicious Document Object Model (DOM) content, i.e., they cannot detect or exploit these vulnerabilities that need to be triggered by complex cross-process exploits via message passing. We present Proton, a segmented directed fuzzing framework for detecting MPVs. Our key insight is to decompose end-to-end fuzzing into per-process segments along message-passing boundaries, where the goals of fuzzing each segment are either: (i) reaching a sink in the current process or (ii) propagating the payload to the next process, to enable the exploration of another process. In the second case, the messages seed the corpus of the next segment. Finally, Proton synthesizes crash inputs from each process to validate end-to-end exploits. We evaluate Proton against 589 real-world Electron applications, resulting in 23 zero-day MPVs. Among them, 22 lead to OS command execution, including projects with over 50k GitHub stars. We responsibly disclosed all findings. To date, we have received 13 acknowledgments, 11 fixes, and 11 CVEs, including a bug bounty from Vercel.

Explore related subjects

cs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jianjia Yu, Zhengyu Liu, Ziyang Li, Yu Sun, Yinzhi Cao. 2026-07-22. Buzz to Boom: Detecting Message Progression Vulnerabilities in Electron Applications via Segmented Directed Fuzzing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20698

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Spoofing Missed-Detection Bounds for PRF GNSS Ranging Authentication Under AWGN Models

Pseudorandom-function (PRF) ranging codes, such as those used in Galileo's encrypted E6-C under the Signal Authentication Service (SAS), enable a receiver to authenticate pseudoranges once the PRF secret is revealed. This work bounds how much authentication security the receiver obtains under Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) assumptions. Against a spoofer that does not estimate the code before submitting its forgery, PRF security makes the forged correlation zero-mean up to the security of the underlying PRF, allowing integration time and C/N$_0$ to mostly determine probability of missed detection (PMD) and probability of false alarm (PFA). Against such a spoofer at a conservative 30 dB-Hz, 400 ms of E6-C aggregation certifies a PMD below $2^{-128}$ (plus any PRF advantage). For a spoofer that estimates chips before submitting a forgery, I derive the receiving-antenna gain at which authentication security breaks, which is about 12 dB for E6-C for the adversaries modeled. This work can be used to design a PRF GNSS ranging code protocol and a receiver capable of correctly asserting PRF ranging security assuming an AWGN model.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

First Attack, Final Offensive: The Dark Forest on an Open Roster

The Dark Forest argument holds that a civilization that detects another should strike it at once. Existing formal models make the detected civilization the object of the strike and play it on a roster the attacker knows to be complete. This paper changes both choices. The object of hostility is remaining uncontrolled capacity to retaliate or to warn someone who can, and the roster is open: no attacker ever knows it has met everyone. A first strike is then rational only if the timing benefit of what it removes now rather than later is at least the disclosure loss from every survivor that learns of it. A survivor that can bring about the attacker's destruction enters that loss as a lump, not a per-unit rate, and the actors the attacker has never found may be such a survivor, one that no strike removes. Their capacity cannot be estimated, but what they can do is capped at the attacker's destruction, so the test against them asks one answerable question: a first strike is rational only if the attacker accepts that the strike may be its last attack. The Dark Forest premises, read as hypotheses, fix what a general attacker cannot estimate: hidden hunters exist, a hunter that verifies a hostile acts against it with probability at least $q$, and a hider is rarely found, so a believer's first strike is rational only if what it removes is worth a $q$-share of its survival, the whole of it as $q$ approaches one. With survival as the payoff, the profile in which every hunter strikes what it finds is not a Nash equilibrium whenever a strike is more visible to unfound hunters than a hider is findable, while the profile in which every hunter hides is. That visibility comparison is the decisive physical question; an attacker that treats its strike as unseen has assumed the roster closed.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

From Capability to Assurance in Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: A Framework and Reference Implementation

Research on large language model agents for penetration testing is evaluated almost entirely by capability: whether the agent captures a flag or reproduces a proof of concept. That metric suits a benchmark but is silent on the properties that decide whether an autonomous agent can be used in an authorized engagement: whether a reported finding is true, whether the agent stayed inside its authorized scope, and whether an operator can audit what it did. We call these assurance properties and argue that they belong to the harness, the runtime wrapping the model, and can be enforced in code. This paper makes three contributions. First, we define a framework of five assurance properties (evidence grounding, non destructive claim reduction, computed severity, enforced authorization, and tamper evident accountability), each with a formal model and an explicit acceptance test, connected to prior work in capability based security, tamper evident logging, and software provenance. Second, we position representative systems (PentestGPT, the Cochise reference harness, MAPTA, and the trajectory judge PentestJudge) within the framework using published coding criteria, and identify a consistent assurance gap. Third, we study one open source implementation, NeuroSploit, pinned to an exact commit, reporting its architecture, its complexity cost, and a content addressed artifact bundle from a run against a public deliberately vulnerable target. We execute the deterministic authorization and audit acceptance tests directly and find and report a real enforcement gap, which we reflect by scoring both properties as partial. We therefore claim an initial existence argument that the properties are realizable together, not a comparative performance result, and we specify the multi target, ablation, and adversarial evaluation protocol required to turn the framework obligations into measurements.

cs.CR↗