... | ... | @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Below shows ZAFL's performance on Google's FuzzBench compared to: |
|
|
* Binary-based **AFLPlusPlus-QEMU** instrumentation (with CmpLog and Dictionary enhancements)
|
|
|
* Binary-based **AFLPlusPlus-QEMU-tracepc** instrumentation (no enhancements)
|
|
|
|
|
|
[![FuzzBench-results](https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/experimental/2021-10-29/experiment_critical_difference_plot.svg)](https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/experimental/2021-10-29/index.html "ZAFL FuzzBench results")
|
|
|
<a href="https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/experimental/2021-10-29/index.html"><img src="https://www.fuzzbench.com/reports/experimental/2021-10-29/experiment_critical_difference_plot.svg" width="300"></img></a>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, ZAFL peforms on-par with state-of-the-art source-level instrumentation while beating the leading QEMU-based instrumentation (even with enhancements)!
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |