Are our clone detectors good enough? An empirical study of code effects by obfuscation

Abstract

Abstract Clone detection has received much attention in many fields such as malicious code detection, vulnerability hunting, and code copyright infringement detection. However, cyber criminals may obfuscate code to impede violation detection. To date, few studies have investigated the robustness of clone detectors, especially in-fashion deep learning-based ones, against obfuscation. Meanwhile, most of these studies only measure the difference between one code snippet and its obfuscation version. However, in reality, the attackers may modify the original code before obfuscating it. Then what we should evaluate is the detection of obfuscated code from cloned code, not the original code. For this, we conduct a comprehensive study evaluating 3 popular deep-learning based clone detectors and 6 commonly used traditional ones. Regarding the data, we collect 6512 clone pairs of five types from the dataset BigCloneBench and obfuscate one program of each pair via 64 strategies of 6 state-of-art commercial obfuscators. We also collect 1424 non-clone pairs to evaluate the false positives. In sum, a benchmark of 524,148 code pairs (either clone or not) are generated, which are passed to clone detectors for evaluation. To automate the evaluation, we develop one uniform evaluation framework, integrating the clone detectors and obfuscators. The results bring us interesting findings on how obfuscation affects the performance of clone detection and what is the difference between traditional and deep learning-based clone detectors. In addition, we conduct manual code reviews to uncover the root cause of the phenomenon and give suggestions to users from different perspectives.

Keywords

• Clone detection
• Obfuscation
• Evaluation