The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SAGE: whitebox fuzzing for security testing
Abstract
SAGE has had a remarkable impact at Microsoft.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
de Moura, L., & Bjørner, N. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 · Cited by 6,595
DART: directed automated random testing
Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., & Sen, K. (2005) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/1064978.1065036 · Cited by 2,067
Self-citationDART: directed automated random testing
Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., & Sen, K. (2005) · Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming language design and implementation · doi:10.1145/1065010.1065036 · Cited by 1,570
Self-citationAutomated Whitebox Fuzz Testing.
Godefroid, P., Levin, M. Y., & Molnar, D. A. (2008) · Cited by 1,095
Self-citationThe Security Development Lifecycle
Howard, M. D., & Lipner, S. (2006) · Microsoft Press eBooks · Cited by 507
An empirical study of the robustness of Windows NT applications using random testing
Forrester, J. E., & Miller, B. P. (2000) · Cited by 271
Automatically classifying benign and harmful data races using replay analysis
Narayanasamy, S., Wang, Z., Tigani, J., Edwards, A., & Calder, B. (2007) · Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/1250734.1250738 · Cited by 254
Cited by
Böhme, M., Pham, V.-T., Nguyen, M.-D., & Roychoudhury, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3133956.3134020 · Cited by 747
A survey of symbolic execution techniques
Baldoni, R., Coppa, E., D’elia, D. C., Demetrescu, C., & Finocchi, I. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3182657 · Cited by 708
Safety and Security in Cyber-Physical Systems and Internet-of-Things Systems
Wolf, M., & Serpanos, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2017.2781198 · Cited by 250
What You Corrupt Is Not What You Crash: Challenges in Fuzzing Embedded Devices
Muench, M., Stijohann, J., Kargl, F., Francillon, A., & Balzarotti, D. (2018) · Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2018.23166 · Cited by 219
Matheu-García, S. N., Hernández-Ramos, J. L., Skarmeta, A. F., & Baldini, G. (2019) · Computer Standards & Interfaces · doi:10.1016/j.csi.2018.08.003 · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Godefroid, P., Levin, M. Y., & Molnar, D.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 40-44
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2042033151
- Cited by
- 567
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 58.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SAGE: whitebox fuzzing for security testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2093548.2093564
- The paper
- Godefroid, P., Levin, M. Y., & Molnar, D. (2012). SAGE: whitebox fuzzing for security testing. Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2093548.2093564
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
