Closed kryptidikettu closed 8 years ago
I've just tested tomviner's demo against AFL 2.19b + python-afl 0.5.3 + Python 2.7 + bidict 0.12.0, and it works for me. Unfortunately AFL doesn't make it easy to debug failures like this. The most common reason (IME) is that the target script doesn't work at all: it fails with import error, or some other kind of exception. So the first debugging step is to run the target script outside (py-)afl-fuzz and double-check that it actually works.
Running the same testcases with normal AFL (afl-fuzz binary) works just fine with the dumb fuzzing flag -n.
afl-fuzz -n
is happy run just about anything, so this does not rule out brokenness of the target script.
Thanks. I did manage to run those tomviner's democases (don't know why they didn't originally work for me). I will start debugging my target script.
I've just tested tomviner's demo against AFL 2.19b + python-afl 0.5.3 + Python 2.7 + bidict 0.12.0, and it works for me. Unfortunately AFL doesn't make it easy to debug failures like this. The most common reason (IME) is that the target script doesn't work at all: it fails with import error, or some other kind of exception. So the first debugging step is to run the target script outside (py-)afl-fuzz and double-check that it actually works.
Running the same testcases with normal AFL (afl-fuzz binary) works just fine with the dumb fuzzing flag -n.
afl-fuzz -n
is happy run just about anything, so this does not rule out brokenness of the target script.
thanks,it works
Trying to run my own testcases (very simple ones) and testcases from here: https://github.com/tomviner/afl-fuzzing-demos with the newest AFL (Version
2.19b
) results in the following error:Increasing the memory limit does not help.
Running the same testcases with normal AFL (
afl-fuzz
binary) works just fine with the dumb fuzzing flag-n
. I'm trying with both Python 2.7.11 and Python 3.4.2.