The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Securify: Practical Security Analysis of Smart Contracts
Abstract
Permissionless blockchains allow the execution of arbitrary programs (called smart contracts), enabling mutually untrusted entities to interact without relying on trusted third parties. Despite their potential, repeated security concerns have shaken the trust in handling billions of USD by smart contracts. To address this problem, we present Securify, a security analyzer for Ethereum smart contracts that is scalable, fully automated, and able to prove contract behaviors as safe/unsafe with respect to a given property. Securify's analysis consists of two steps. First, it symbolically analyzes the contract's dependency graph to extract precise semantic information from the code. Then, it checks compliance and violation patterns that capture sufficient conditions for proving if a property holds or not. To enable extensibility, all patterns are specified in a designated domain-specific language. Securify is publicly released, it has analyzed >18K contracts submitted by its users, and is regularly used to conduct security audits by experts. We present an extensive evaluation of Securify over real-world Ethereum smart contracts and demonstrate that it can effectively prove the correctness of smart contracts and discover critical violations.
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
Hawk: The Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts
Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., & Papamanthou, C. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp.2016.55 · Cited by 2,227
A Survey of Attacks on Ethereum Smart Contracts (SoK)
Atzei, N., Bartoletti, M., & Cimoli, T. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54455-6_8 · Cited by 1,553
Cited by
Blockchain for 5G and beyond networks: A state of the art survey
Nguyen, D. C., Pathirana, P. N., Ding, M., & Seneviratne, A. (2020) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102693 · Cited by 412
Empirical review of automated analysis tools on 47,587 Ethereum smart contracts
Durieux, T., Ferreira, J. F., Abreu, R., & Cruz, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3377811.3380364 · Cited by 409
Blockchain envisioned uav networks: challenges, solutions, and comparisons
Mehta, P., Gupta, R., & Tanwar, S. (2020) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2020.01.023 · Cited by 266
Integration of Blockchain and Cloud of Things: Architecture, Applications and Challenges
Nguyen, D. C., Pathirana, P. N., Ding, M., & Seneviratne, A. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2020.3020092 · Cited by 261
Understanding Security Issues in the NFT Ecosystem
Das, D., Bose, P., Ruaro, N., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3548606.3559342 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- Tsankov, P., Dan, A., Drachsler-Cohen, D., Gervais, A., Bünzli, F., & Vechev, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-10-15
- Pages
- 67-82
- OpenAlex
- W2805052744
- Cited by
- 1,043
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 69.76
- Type
- conference paper
- 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
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.
