The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ZEUS: Analyzing Safety of Smart Contracts
Open accessAbstract
A smart contract is hard to patch for bugs once it is deployed, irrespective of the money it holds.A recent bug caused losses worth around $50 million of cryptocurrency.We present ZEUS-a framework to verify the correctness and validate the fairness of smart contracts.We consider correctness as adherence to safe programming practices, while fairness is adherence to agreed upon higher-level business logic.ZEUS leverages both abstract interpretation and symbolic model checking, along with the power of constrained horn clauses to quickly verify contracts for safety.We have built a prototype of ZEUS for Ethereum and Fabric blockchain platforms, and evaluated it with over 22.4K smart contracts.Our evaluation indicates that about 94.6% of contracts (containing cryptocurrency worth more than $0.5 billion) are vulnerable.ZEUS is sound with zero false negatives and has a low false positive rate, with an order of magnitude improvement in analysis time as compared to prior art.1 Oyente is under active development and future releases could add more features and reduce the false alarms.
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
Cited by
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
SoK: Decentralized Finance (DeFi)
Werner, S., Perez, D., Gudgeon, L., Klages-Mundt, A., Harz, D., & Knottenbelt, W. (2022) · Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies · doi:10.1145/3558535.3559780 · Cited by 404
Smart Contract: Attacks and Protections
Sayeed, S., Marco-Gisbert, H., & Caira, T. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2970495 · Cited by 322
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
Potential Risks of Hyperledger Fabric Smart Contracts
Yamashita, K., Nomura, Y., Zhou, E., Pi, B., & Jun, S. (2019) · 2019 IEEE International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE) · doi:10.1109/iwbose.2019.8666486 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalra, S., Goel, S., Dhawan, M., & Sharma, S.
- Venue
- Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium
- Publisher
- Internet Society
- Published
- 2018
- OpenAlex
- W2790202156
- Cited by
- 702
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 60.59
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: ZEUS: Analyzing Safety of Smart Contracts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14722/ndss.2018.23082
- The paper
- Kalra, S., Goel, S., Dhawan, M., & Sharma, S. (2018). ZEUS: Analyzing Safety of Smart Contracts. Proceedings 2018 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2018.23082
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.
