arXiv subjects

Tamer Abdelaziz

Publications and source records attributed to Tamer Abdelaziz.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Usenix'23 Extended Version: Smart Learning to Find Dumb Contracts

We introduce the Deep Learning Vulnerability Analyzer (DLVA) for Ethereum smart contracts based on neural networks. We train DLVA to judge bytecode even though the supervising oracle can only judge source. DLVA's training algorithm is general: we extend a source code analysis to bytecode without any manual feature engineering, predefined patterns, or expert rules. DLVA's training algorithm is also robust: it overcame a 1.25% error rate mislabeled contracts, and--the student surpassing the teacher--found vulnerable contracts that Slither mislabeled. DLVA is much faster than other smart contract vulnerability detectors: DLVA checks contracts for 29 vulnerabilities in 0.2 seconds, a 10-1,000x speedup. DLVA has three key components. First, Smart Contract to Vector (SC2V) uses neural networks to map smart contract bytecode to a high-dimensional floating-point vector. We benchmark SC2V against 4 state-of-the-art graph neural networks and show that it improves model differentiation by 2.2%. Second, Sibling Detector (SD) classifies contracts when a target contract's vector is Euclidian-close to a labeled contract's vector in a training set; although only able to judge 55.7% of the contracts in our test set, it has a Slither-predictive accuracy of 97.4% with a false positive rate of only 0.1%. Third, Core Classifier (CC) uses neural networks to infer vulnerable contracts regardless of vector distance. We benchmark DLVA's CC with 10 ML techniques and show that the CC improves accuracy by 11.3%. Overall, DLVA predicts Slither's labels with an overall accuracy of 92.7% and associated false positive rate of 7.2%. Lastly, we benchmark DLVA against nine well-known smart contract analysis tools. Despite using much less analysis time, DLVA completed every query, leading the pack with an average accuracy of 99.7%, pleasingly balancing high true positive rates with low false positive rates.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Smart Contract Security Beyond Detection

Smart contract security has progressed from vulnerability detection toward a broader research agenda that includes semantic reasoning, automated repair, adversarial robustness, and real-time exploit detection. This paper develops a capstone-oriented research narrative around four directions: foundation-model-based smart contract semantics and vulnerability reasoning [1], automated smart contract repair with formal guarantees [2], adversarial learning for robust malicious contract and transaction detection [3], and real-time transaction-level exploit detection at blockchain scale [4]. We connect these directions to two recent studies that characterize the current frontier: a diagnostic analysis of where smart contract security analyzers fall short [5] and a scalable real-time system for malicious Ethereum transaction detection [6]. The resulting framework is intended to help students formulate capstone projects that are technically grounded, empirically measurable, and aligned with contemporary smart contract security research.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Where Do Smart Contract Security Analyzers Fall Short?

Smart contracts underpin high-value ecosystems such as decentralized finance (DeFi), yet recurring vulnerabilities continue to cause losses worth billions of dollars. Although numerous security analyzers that detect such flaws exist, real-world attacks remain frequent, raising the question of whether these tools are truly effective or simply under-used due to low developer trust. Prior benchmarks have evaluated analyzers on synthetic or vulnerable-only contract datasets, limiting their ability to measure false positives, false negatives, and usability factors that drive adoption. To close this gap, we present a mixed-methods study that combines large-scale benchmarking with practitioner insights. We evaluate six widely used analyzers (i.e., Confuzzius, Dlva, Mythril, Osiris, Oyente, and Slither) on 653 real-world smart contracts that cover three high-impact vulnerability classes from the OWASP Smart Contract Top Ten (i.e., reentrancy, suicidal contract termination, and integer arithmetic errors). Our results show substantial variation in accuracy (F1 = 31.2 to 94.6%), high false-positive rates (up to 32.6%), and runtimes exceeding 700 seconds per contract. We then survey 150 professional developers and auditors to understand how they use and perceive these tools. Our findings reveal that excessive false positives, vague explanations, and long analysis times are the main barriers to trust and adoption in practice. By linking measurable performance gaps to developer perceptions, we provide concrete recommendations for improving the precision, explainability, and usability of smart-contract security analyzers.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Schooling to Exploit Foolish Contracts

We introduce SCooLS, our Smart Contract Learning (Semi-supervised) engine. SCooLS uses neural networks to analyze Ethereum contract bytecode and identifies specific vulnerable functions. SCooLS incorporates two key elements: semi-supervised learning and graph neural networks (GNNs). Semi-supervised learning produces more accurate models than unsupervised learning, while not requiring the large oracle-labeled training set that supervised learning requires. GNNs enable direct analysis of smart contract bytecode without any manual feature engineering, predefined patterns, or expert rules. SCooLS is the first application of semi-supervised learning to smart contract vulnerability analysis, as well as the first deep learning-based vulnerability analyzer to identify specific vulnerable functions. SCooLS's performance is better than existing tools, with an accuracy level of 98.4%, an F1 score of 90.5%, and an exceptionally low false positive rate of only 0.8%. Furthermore, SCooLS is fast, analyzing a typical function in 0.05 seconds. We leverage SCooLS's ability to identify specific vulnerable functions to build an exploit generator, which was successful in stealing Ether from 76.9% of the true positives.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2019

Identification and Assessment of Software Design Pattern Violations

The validation of design pattern implementations to identify pattern violations has gained more relevance as part of re-engineering processes in order to preserve, extend, reuse software projects in rapid development environments. If design pattern implementations do not conform to their definitions, they are considered a violation. Software aging and the lack of experience of developers are the origins of design pattern violations. It is important to check the correctness of the design pattern implementations against some predefined characteristics to detect and to correct violations, thus, to reduce costs. Currently, several tools have been developed to detect design pattern instances, but there has been little work done in creating an automated tool to identify and validate design pattern violations. In this paper we propose a Design Pattern Violations Identification and Assessment (DPVIA) tool, which has the ability to identify software design pattern violations and report the conformance score of pattern instance implementations towards a set of predefined characteristics for any design pattern definition whether Gang of Four (GoF) design patterns by Gamma et al[1]; or custom pattern by software developer. Moreover, we have verified the validity of the proposed tool using two evaluation experiments and the results were manually checked. Finally, in order to assess the functionality of the proposed tool, it is evaluated with a data-set containing 5,679,964 Lines of Code among 28,669 in 15 open-source projects, with a large and small size of open-source projects that extensively and systematically employing design patterns, to determine design pattern violations and suggest refactoring solutions, thus keeping costs of software evolution. The results can be used by software architects to develop best practices while using design patterns.

cs.SE↗