You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 22, 2024. It is now read-only.
Sorry if I'm missing something from the documentation, but I couldn't figure this out. I'm trying to compare how much having the feedback from the instrumentation in AFL helps in finding unique crashes compared to dumb mode. Using AFL with instrumentation on a given program, it is reporting 114 unique crashes. However, running the same program with the -n flag, it reports 557,000 unique crashes (I'm assuming this is because it can't compare execution paths between crashes).
I'm wondering if there is a flag or tool (or some small changes I could make to the AFL source) to run the crashing input identified by AFL in dumb mode, but this time with instrumentation so I can find how many unique crashes were identified without instrumentation.
Thanks for any help.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sorry if I'm missing something from the documentation, but I couldn't figure this out. I'm trying to compare how much having the feedback from the instrumentation in AFL helps in finding unique crashes compared to dumb mode. Using AFL with instrumentation on a given program, it is reporting 114 unique crashes. However, running the same program with the
-n
flag, it reports 557,000 unique crashes (I'm assuming this is because it can't compare execution paths between crashes).I'm wondering if there is a flag or tool (or some small changes I could make to the AFL source) to run the crashing input identified by AFL in dumb mode, but this time with instrumentation so I can find how many unique crashes were identified without instrumentation.
Thanks for any help.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: