The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Finding The Greedy, Prodigal, and Suicidal Contracts at Scale
Open accessAbstract
Smart contracts---stateful executable objects hosted on blockchains like Ethereum---carry billions of dollars worth of coins and cannot be updated once deployed. We present a new systematic characterization of a class of trace vulnerabilities, which result from analyzing multiple invocations of a contract over its lifetime. We focus attention on three example properties of such trace vulnerabilities: finding contracts that either lock funds indefinitely, leak them carelessly to arbitrary users, or can be killed by anyone. We implemented Maian, the first tool for specifying and reasoning about trace properties, which employs interprocedural symbolic analysis and concrete validator for exhibiting real exploits. Our analysis of nearly one million contracts flags 34, 200 (2, 365 distinct) contracts vulnerable, in 10 seconds per contract. On a subset of 3, 759 contracts which we sampled for concrete validation and manual analysis, we reproduce real exploits at a true positive rate of 89%, yielding exploits for 3, 686 contracts. Our tool finds exploits for the infamous Parity bug that indirectly locked $200 million US worth in Ether, which previous analyses failed to capture.
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
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
ContractFuzzer: fuzzing smart contracts for vulnerability detection
Jiang, B., Liu, Y., & Chan, W. K. (2018) · Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3238147.3238177 · Cited by 820
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
Opportunities for Use of Blockchain Technology in Medicine
Radanović, I., & Likić, R. (2018) · Applied Health Economics and Health Policy · doi:10.1007/s40258-018-0412-8 · Cited by 348
Security, Performance, and Applications of Smart Contracts: A Systematic Survey
Rouhani, S., & Deters, R. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2911031 · Cited by 309
Realizing the potential of blockchain technologies in genomics
Ozercan, H. I., Ileri, A. M., Ayday, E., & Alkan, C. (2018) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.207464.116 · Cited by 143
Metadata
- Authors
- Nikolić, I., Kolluri, A., Sergey, I., Saxena, P., & Hobor, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-12-03
- Pages
- 653-663
- ISSN
- 1063-9527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2787648539
- Cited by
- 660
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 60.99
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Finding The Greedy, Prodigal, and Suicidal Contracts at Scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3274694.3274743
- The paper
- Nikolić, I., Kolluri, A., Sergey, I., Saxena, P., & Hobor, A. (2018). Finding The Greedy, Prodigal, and Suicidal Contracts at Scale. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274694.3274743
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.