What are the Actual Flaws in Important Smart Contracts (and How Can We Find Them)?
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Smart contract security is a critical issue in the world of blockchain technology
- Understanding potential weaknesses in contracts is one of the most significant challenges in this area
- A recent paper titled "What are the Actual Flaws in Important Smart Contracts (and How Can We Find Them)?" provides an insightful summary of Ethereum smart contract audits conducted for 23 professional stakeholders
- The study was conducted at a leading company specializing in blockchain security using both open-source and proprietary tools, as well as human code analysis performed by professional security engineers
- The researchers categorized 246 individual defects, making it possible to compare the severity and frequency of different vulnerability types
- The paper's findings shed light on several crucial aspects of smart contract security, including comparing smart contract and non-smart contract flaws to identify areas where vulnerabilities were more likely to occur and estimating the efficacy of automated vulnerability detection approaches
- By identifying common weaknesses and comparing their severity across different types of contracts, we can develop more effective strategies for securing these critical components of blockchain technology.
Authors: Alex Groce, Josselin Feist, Gustavo Grieco, Michael Colburn
Abstract: An important problem in smart contract security is understanding the likelihood and criticality of discovered, or potential, weaknesses in contracts. In this paper we provide a summary of Ethereum smart contract audits performed for 23 professional stakeholders, avoiding the common problem of reporting issues mostly prevalent in low-quality contracts. These audits were performed at a leading company in blockchain security, using both open-source and proprietary tools, as well as human code analysis performed by professional security engineers. We categorize 246 individual defects, making it possible to compare the severity and frequency of different vulnerability types, compare smart contract and non-smart contract flaws, and to estimate the efficacy of automated vulnerability detection approaches.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Welcome to our AI assistant! Here are some important things to keep in mind:
- The assistant will only answer questions related to this specific paper.
- Please note that this is not a bot for casual chatting.
- If you want the answer in a language other than the language you chose for navigating the website, simply add "TRANSLATE IN LANGUAGE L" at the end of your query (replace "LANGUAGE L" with the language of your choice).
- For example, you could ask "Can you extract the most important aspect of the paper? TRANSLATE IN SPANISH".
- If you want to keep the history of your questions/answers you should create an account.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.