From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stephan.lipp@tum.de>
Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de (postout2.mail.lrz.de [129.187.255.138])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BDF03858D20
	for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Mon,  7 Nov 2022 12:28:10 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5BDF03858D20
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=tum.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tum.de
Received: from lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N5Vr81HwPzyT3;
	Mon,  7 Nov 2022 13:28:08 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: postout.lrz.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
	reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=tum.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tum.de; h=
	content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:subject
	:subject:from:from:content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date
	:date:message-id:received:received; s=tu-postout21; t=
	1667824087; bh=DlZwMLI4agvoUl8A6bg94qOqNxbeWylsjBT51WRhg+Q=; b=F
	jZ9zs9ltKUTdUEDNM75+QOlwT6l0xWGLqPjqAMqVKFAzQCyUBWCjRsGCSlLx9BjC
	3hThuqbpihFB+P71f8Dyc7SkEJO+Ro0z9P7RS/I22ysitU4qtsIDeTnbXKzuB0aS
	lNru1GSwZzirfEg2FEyc6WgPOCQI4i/fhsKG9LEzTPlZglVEMm16ggPU6Le8LzpE
	YLzzcu6jYUOaClm5v9bMj3vqqE8CgEa8mjw4tWUrRSoGA5Tai8xJzSJt2JClja/x
	HdLZSOmuzKaW0bnKbaDB7zPOwp+F/yOPrLs+c6OlTFDwC//tH4VwkFX8+yR6Fym4
	v9zwt+SQw+dUxiLIOz0XQ==
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lrz.de in lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de
X-Spam-Score: -2.872
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de ([127.0.0.1])
	by lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 20024)
	with LMTP id 5j44FZ2m0FCL; Mon,  7 Nov 2022 13:28:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPV6:2a09:80c0:46::1058] (i04mo58.in.tum.de [IPv6:2a09:80c0:46::1058])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4N5Vr723YGzySj;
	Mon,  7 Nov 2022 13:28:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <99fa0211-c6d0-acd4-975b-852dff21219e@tum.de>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 13:28:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: binutils@sourceware.org
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Marcel_B=c3=b6hme?= <marcel.boehme@mpi-sp.org>,
 Thorsten Holz <holz@cispa.de>,
 "Pretschner, Alexander" <alexander.pretschner@tum.de>,
 "Hassler, Keno" <keno.hassler@cispa.de>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Philipp_G=c3=b6rz?= <mail@philipp-goerz.com>
From: Stephan Lipp <stephan.lipp@tum.de>
Subject: Automated vulnerability detection
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>

Dear all,

Do you use static analysis tools or fuzzers to test Binutils (2.29)? 
Together with Dr. Marcel Böhme (MPI-SP), Prof. Thorsten Holz (CISPA), 
Prof. Alexander Pretschner (TUM), Keno Hassler, and Philipp Görz (both 
also with CISPA), we are currently analyzing the strengths and 
weaknesses of automated static and dynamic testing techniques in finding 
vulnerabilities.

We are happy to share any insights from our analysis which might be also 
helpful to you. Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards,
Stephan