On 7/12/2010 21:21, Christian Henning wrote:
Hi Fabio,
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Fabio Fracassi<f.fracassi@gmx.net> wrote:
Note that I also do not have any first hand experience with it, but from what I have heard some forms of randomized (with a logged or fixed seed) fault injection (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fault_injection) or fuzz-testing (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fuzz_testing) is quite effective for that kind of testing. A quick google search turned up this (http://www.securiteam.com/tools/6P00B1FNFM.html) for a jpeg fuzzer (haven't checked the license though)
I think adding something like this to the test suite would be the most efficient approach, especially since scripted fuzzing does not take too much diskspace.
Don't you think that adding a fuzzer to the boost source tree is a little dangerous? Same goes "fuzzed" jpegs since they might be picked up by a virus scanner.
I didn't think about virus scanners. I don't think a fuzzer script would be a problem though, the fuzzed images might be another matter. If it is really a problem, The fuzzer tests could be separated to another archive.
I rather not add such dodgy data into the boost community.
I don't think they are dodgy, fuzzing is a legitimate testing facility. AFAIK Mozilla and other Browsers use it. regards Fabio