News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Our suite of Ethereum security tools.

Re:Our suite of Ethereum security tools by monocasa on Saturday March 24, 2018 @10:32AM (#16666757)
Are there no frameworks for formally validating smart contracts or using thereom provers? The small code size, non Turing completeness, and extremely high penalty for failure seem to all align.

Hell, even in an offensive sense it makes sense. https://anee.me/solving-a-simple-crackme-using-z3-68c55af7f7...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Our suite of Ethereum security tools by dguido on Saturday March 24, 2018 @03:12PM (#16668294)
Manticore in the post above uses formal methods to verify contract properties!

https://github.com/trailofbits/manticore

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Our suite of Ethereum security tools by ESultanik on Saturday March 24, 2018 @04:08PM (#16668611)
Ethereum contracts are effectively Turing complete (well, technically linear bounded automata complete). But you get the same state space explosion issues as with formal validation of any other language.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Our suite of Ethereum security tools by jbverschoor on Saturday March 24, 2018 @10:50AM (#16666840)
https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/zeppelin-solidity
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Our suite of Ethereum security tools by monocasa on Saturday March 24, 2018 @11:01AM (#16666909)
As much as they use 'secure' in their README, I don't see any real evidence of that in their code.

When I'm looking for formally methods, a package.json is a bad sign.

[ Parent | on HN ]