Advancing Automated Test-Suite Generation And Vulnerability Detection In Smart Contracts: A Comprehensive Analysis

Authors

  • Johnathan Meyers Department of Computer Science, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

Keywords:

Smart contracts, Automated testing, Vulnerability detection

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of blockchain technologies and decentralized applications has elevated the role of smart contracts as critical components in financial, legal, and technological ecosystems. However, the immutable nature of smart contracts and their exposure to complex transactional interactions have made them susceptible to vulnerabilities, including reentrancy, arithmetic overflow, and implicit privilege leaks. This study investigates the state-of-the-art in automated test-suite generation and vulnerability detection for smart contracts, synthesizing methodologies from evolutionary algorithms, symbolic execution, reinforcement learning-guided fuzzing, and coverage-driven analysis. By examining approaches such as SolAR, SynTest-Solidity, SmarTest, and TaintGuard, we highlight the theoretical and practical implications of automated testing, including the trade-offs between coverage maximization and execution efficiency. Furthermore, architectural considerations, guided by models like 1+5 Architectural Views, are evaluated to integrate testing frameworks seamlessly with blockchain systems. The findings reveal that while automated test generation improves vulnerability detection and reduces human effort, challenges remain in achieving comprehensive coverage, managing state-space explosion, and aligning testing outputs with real-world contract execution contexts. This paper provides an extensive theoretical elaboration of existing approaches, identifies gaps in literature, and proposes directions for future research to enhance the reliability, security, and maintainability of smart contracts within complex distributed ecosystems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Aho, A.V.; Lam, M.S.; Sethi, R.; Ullman, J.D. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, 2nd ed.; Addison Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2006.

2. Chen, H.; Xue, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, B.; Xie, X.; Wu, X.; Liu, Y. Hawkeye: Towards a Desired Directed Grey-box Fuzzer. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Toronto, ON, Canada, 15–19 October 2018; pp. 2095–2108.

3. Driessen, S.W.; Di Nucci, D.; Tamburri, D.A.; van den Heuvel, W.J. SolAR: Automated test-suite generation for solidity smart contracts. Sci. Comput. Program. 2024, 232, 103036.

4. Durieux, T.; Ferreira, J.F.; Abreu, R.; Cruz, P. Empirical Review of Automated Analysis Tools on 47,587 Ethereum Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 27 June–19 July 2020; pp. 530–541.

5. Górski, T. AdapT: A reusable package for implementing smart contracts that process transactions of congruous types. Softw. Impacts 2024, 21, 100694.

6. Górski, T. SmarTS: A Java package for smart contract test suite generation and execution. SoftwareX 2024, 26, 101698.

7. Górski, T. Verification of Architectural Views Model 1+5 Applicability. In Computer Aided Systems Theory—EUROCAST 2019; Moreno-Díaz, R., Pichler, F., Quesada-Arencibia, A., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12013, pp. 499–506.

8. Górski, T. The 1+5 Architectural Views Model in Designing Blockchain and IT System Integration Solutions. Symmetry 2021, 13, 2000.

9. Olsthoorn, M.; Stallenberg, D.; Van Deursen, A.; Panichella, A. SynTest-Solidity: Automated Test Case Generation and Fuzzing for Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 21–29 May 2022; pp. 202–206.

10. Sagar Kesarpu. Contract Testing with PACT: Ensuring Reliable API Interactions in Distributed Systems. The American Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(06), 14–23, 2025. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue06-03

11. So, S.; Hong, S.; Oh, H. SmarTest: Effectively Hunting Vulnerable Transaction Sequences in Smart Contracts through Language Model-Guided Symbolic Execution. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium, Virtual, 11–13 August 2021.

12. Su, J.; Dai, H.N.; Zhao, L.; Zibin Zheng, X.L. Effectively Generating Vulnerable Transaction Sequences in Smart Contracts with Reinforcement Learning-guided Fuzzing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Rochester, MI, USA, 10–14 October 2022; pp. 1–12.

13. Sujeetha, R.; Akila, K. Improving Coverage and Vulnerability Detection in Smart Contract Testing Using Self-Adaptive Learning GA. IETE J. Res. 2023, 70, 1593–1606.

14. Wang, X.; Xie, Z.; He, J.; Zhao, G.; Nie, R. Basis Path Coverage Criteria for Smart Contract Application Testing. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC), Guilin, China, 17–19 October 2019; pp. 34–41.

15. Wu, X.; Du, X.; Yang, Q.; Liu, A.; Wang, N.; Wang, W. TaintGuard: Preventing implicit privilege leakage in smart contract based on taint tracking at abstract syntax tree level. J. Syst. Archit. 2023, 141, 102925.

16. SoftSec Lab. Smartian GitHub Repository. Available online: https://github.com/SoftSec-KAIST/Smartian (accessed on 11 February 2025).

Downloads

Published

2025-07-31

How to Cite

Advancing Automated Test-Suite Generation And Vulnerability Detection In Smart Contracts: A Comprehensive Analysis. (2025). International Journal of Advance Scientific Research, 5(07), 61-67. https://sciencebring.com/index.php/ijasr/article/view/1007

Similar Articles

31-40 of 45

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.