1 / 42

GPLAG: Detection of Software Plagiarism by Program Dependence Graph Analysis

GPLAG: Detection of Software Plagiarism by Program Dependence Graph Analysis. Chao Liu, Chen Chen, Jiawei Han, Philip S. Yu University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign IBM T.J. Waston Research Center Presented by Chao Liu. Motivations. Blossom of open-source projects

boone
Download Presentation

GPLAG: Detection of Software Plagiarism by Program Dependence Graph Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GPLAG: Detection of Software Plagiarism by Program Dependence Graph Analysis Chao Liu, Chen Chen, Jiawei Han, Philip S. Yu University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign IBM T.J. Waston Research Center Presented by Chao Liu

  2. Motivations • Blossom of open-source projects • SourceForge.net: 125,090 projects as July 2006 • Convenience for software plagiarism? • You can always find something online • Core-part plagiarism • Ripping off GUIs and irrelevant parts • (Illegally) reuse the implementations of core-algorithms • Our goal • Efficient detection of core-part plagiarism

  3. Challenges • Effectiveness • Professional plagiarists • Automated plagiarism • Efficiency • Only a small part of code is plagiarized, how to detect it efficiently?

  4. Outline • Plagiarism Disguises • Review of Plagiarism Detection • GPLAG: PDG-based Plagiarism Detection • Efficiency and Scalability • Experiments • Conclusions

  5. Original Program A procedure in a program, called join 01 static void 02 make_blank (struct line *blank, int count) 03 { 04 int i; 05 unsigned char *buffer; 06 struct field *fields; 07 blank->nfields = count; 08 blank->buf.size = blank->buf.length = count + 1; 09 blank->buf.buffer = (char*) xmalloc (blank->buf.size); 10 buffer = (unsigned char *) blank->buf.buffer; 11 blank->fields = fields = (struct field *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct field) * count); 12 for (i = 0; i < count; i++){ 13 ... 14 } 15 }

  6. Disguise 1: Format Alteration Insert comments and blanks 01 static void 02 make_blank (struct line *blank, int count) 03 { 04 int i; 05 unsigned char *buffer; 06 struct field *fields; 07 blank->nfields = count; // initialization 08 blank->buf.size = blank->buf.length = count + 1; 09 blank->buf.buffer = (char*) xmalloc (blank->buf.size); 10 buffer = (unsigned char *) blank->buf.buffer; 11 blank->fields = fields = (struct field *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct field) * count); 12 for (i = 0; i < count; i++){ 13 ... 14 } 15 }

  7. Disguise 2: Identifier Renaming Rename variables consistently 01 static void 02 fill_content (struct line *fill, int num) 03 { 04 int i; 05 unsigned char *buffer; 06 struct field *fields; 07 fill->nfields = num; // initialization 08 fill->buf.size = fill->buf.length = num + 1; 09 fill->buf.buffer = (char*) xmalloc (fill->buf.size); 10 buffer = (unsigned char *) fill->buf.buffer; 11 fill->fields = fields = (struct field *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct field) * num); 12 for (i = 0; i < num; i++){ 13 ... 14 } 15 }

  8. Disguise 3: Statement Reordering Reorder non-dependent statements 01 static void 02 fill_content (struct line *fill, int num) 03 { 04 int i; 05 unsigned char *buffer; 06 struct field *fields; 11fill->fields = fields = (struct field *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct field) * num); 08 fill->buf.size = fill->buf.length = num + 1; 09 fill->buf.buffer = (char*) xmalloc (fill->buf.size); 10 buffer = (unsigned char *) fill->buf.buffer; 07fill->nfields = num; // initialization 12 for (i = 0; i < num; i++){ 13 ... 14 } 15 }

  9. Disguise 4: Control Replacement Use equivalent control structure • 01 static void • 02 fill_content (struct line *fill, int num) • 03 { • 04 int i; • 05 unsigned char *buffer; • 06 struct field *fields; • 11fill->fields = fields = • (struct field *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct field) * num); • 08 fill->buf.size = fill->buf.length = num + 1; • 09 fill->buf.buffer = (char*) xmalloc (fill->buf.size); • 10 buffer = (unsigned char *) fill->buf.buffer; • 07fill->nfields = num; // initialization • i = 0; • while (i < num){ • ... • 15 i++; • 16 } • 17 }

  10. Disguise 5: Code Insertion Insert immaterial code • 01 static void • 02 fill_content (struct line *fill, int num) • 03 { • 04 int i; • 05 unsigned char *buffer; • 06 struct field *fields; • 11fill->fields = fields = • (struct field *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct field) * num); • 08 fill->buf.size = fill->buf.length = num + 1; • 09 fill->buf.buffer = (char*) xmalloc (fill->buf.size); • 10 buffer = (unsigned char *) fill->buf.buffer; • 07fill->nfields = num; // initialization • i = 0; • while (i < num){ • ... for (int j = 0; j < i; j++); • 15 i++; • 16 } • 17 }

  11. Fully Disguised

  12. Outline • Plagiarism Disguises • Review of Plagiarism Detection • GPLAG: PDG-based Plagiarism Detection • Efficiency and Scalability • Experiments • Conclusions

  13. Review of Plagiarism Detection • String-based [Baker et al. 1995] • A program represented as a string • Blanks and comments ignored. • AST-based [Baxter et al. 1998, Kontogiannis et al. 1995] • A program is represented as an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) • Fragile to statement reordering, control replacement and code insertion • Token-based [Kamiya et al. 2002, Prechelt et al. 2002] • Variables of the same type are mapped to the same token • A program is represented as a token string • Fingerprint of token strings is used for robustness [Schleimer et al. 2003] • Partially robust to statement reordering, control replacement and code insertion • Representatives: Moss and JPlag

  14. Outline • Plagiarism Disguises • Review of Plagiarism Detection • GPLAG: PDG-based Plagiarism Detection • Efficiency and Scalability • Experiments • Conclusions

  15. Graphic representation of source code int sum(int array[], int count) { int i, sum; sum = 0; for(i = 0; i < count; i++){ sum = add(sum, array[i]); } return sum; } int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; }

  16. Graphic representation of source code int sum(int array[], int count) { int i, sum; sum = 0; for(i = 0; i < count; i++){ sum = add(sum, array[i]); } return sum; } int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; }

  17. Control Dependency int sum(int array[], int count) { int i, sum; sum = 0; for(i = 0; i < count; i++){ sum = add(sum, array[i]); } return sum; } int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; }

  18. Data Dependency int sum(int array[], int count) { int i, sum; sum = 0; for(i = 0; i < count; i++){ sum = add(sum, array[i]); } return sum; } int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; }

  19. Plagiarism Detectible?

  20. Corresponding PDGs PDG for the Original Code PDG for the Plagiarized Code

  21. PDG-based Plagiarism Detection • A program is represented as a set of PDGs • Let g be a PDG of Procedure P in the original program • Let g’ be a PDG of Procedure P’ in the plagiarism suspect • Subgraph isomorphism implies plagiarism • If g is subgraph isomorphic to g’, P’ is likely plagiarized from P • γ-isomorphism: Graph g is γ-isomorphic to g’ if there exists a subgraph s of g such that s is subgraph isomorphic to g’, and |s|≥ γ |g|. • If g is γ–isomorphic to g’, the PDG pair (g, g’) is regarded as a plagiarized PDG pair, and is then returned to human beings for examination.

  22. Advantages • Robust because it is hard to overhaul PDGs • Dependencies encode program logic • Incentive of plagiarism

  23. Outline • Plagiarism Disguises • Review of Plagiarism Detection • GPLAG: PDG-based Plagiarism Detection • Efficiency and Scalability • Experiments • Conclusions

  24. Efficiency and Scalability • Search space • If the original program has n procedures and the plagiarism suspect has m procedures • n*m subgraph isomorphism testings • Pruning search space • Lossless filter • Statistical lossy filter

  25. Lossless filter • Interestingness • PDGs smaller than an interesting size K are excluded from both sides • γ-isomorphism definition • A PDG pair (g, g’) is discarded if |g’| <γ|g|.

  26. Lossy Filter • Observation • If procedure P’ is plagiarized from procedure P, its PDG g’ should look similar to g. • So discard those dissimilar PDG pairs • Requirement • This filter must be light-weighted

  27. Vertex Histogram • Represent PDG g by h(g) = (n1, n2, …, nk), where ni is the frequency of the ith kind of vertices. • Similarly, represent PDG g’ by h(g’) = (m1, m2, …, mk). • Direct similarity measurement? • How to define a proper similarity threshold? • Is thus defined threshold program-independent?

  28. Hypothesis Testing-based Approach • Basic idea • Estimate a k-dimensional multinomial distribution from h(g) • Test whether h(g’) is likely an observation from • If it is, g’ looks similar to g, and an isomorphism testing is needed. • Otherwise, (g, g’) is discarded

  29. Technical Details

  30. Technical Details (cont’d)

  31. Work-flow of GPLAG • PDGs are generated with Codesurfer • Isomorphism testing is implemented with VFLib.

  32. Outline • Plagiarism Disguises • Review of Plagiarism Detection • GPLAG: PDG-based Plagiarism Detection • Efficiency and Scalability • Experiments • Conclusions

  33. Experiment Design • Subject programs • Effectiveness • Filter efficiency • Core-part plagiarism detection

  34. Effectiveness • 2-hour manual plagiarism, but can be automated? • GPLAG detects all plagiarized PDG pairs within 1 second • PDG isomorphism also reveals what plagiarism disguises are applied

  35. Efficiency • Subject programs • bc, less and tar. • Exact copy as plagiarism. • Lossless and lossy filter • Pruning PDG-pairs. • Implication to overall time cost.

  36. Pruning Uninteresting PDG-pairs • Lossless only • Lossless and lossy

  37. Implication to Overall Time Cost • Time-out for subgraph isomorphism testing, time hogs. • Lossless filter does not save much time. • Lossy filter significantly reduces the time cost. • Major time saving comes from the avoidance of time hogs.

  38. Detection of Core-part Plagiarism • Lower time cost with lossy filter. • Lower false positives with lossy filter.

  39. Outline • Plagiarism Disguises • Review of Plagiarism Detection • GPLAG: PDG-based Plagiarism Detection • Efficiency and Scalability • Experiments • Conclusions

  40. Conclusions • We developed a new algorithm GPLAG for software plagiarism detection • It is more effective to fight against “professional” plagiarists • We developed a statistical lossy filter, which improves the efficiency of GPLAG • We experimentally verified the effectiveness and efficiency of GPLAG

  41. Q & A Thank You!

  42. References [1] B. S. Baker. On finding duplication and near duplication in large software systems. In Proc. of 2nd Working Conf. on Reverse Engineering, 1995. [2] I. D. Baxter, A. Yahin, L. Moura, M. Sant’Anna, and L. Bier. Clone detection using abstract syntax trees. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on Software Maintenance, 1998. [3] K. Kontogiannis, M. Galler, and R. DeMori. Detecting code similarity using patterns. In Working Notes of 3rd Workshop on AI and Software Engineering, 1995. [4] T. Kamiya, S. Kusumoto, and K. Inoue. CCFinder: a multilinguistic token-based code clone detection system for large scale source code. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 28(7), 2002. [5] L. Prechelt, G. Malpohl, and M. Philippsen. Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs with JPlag. J. of Universal Computer Science, 8(11), 2002. [6] S. Schleimer, D. S. Wilkerson, and A. Aiken. Winnowing: local algorithms for document fingerprinting. SIGMOD, 2003. [7] V. B. Livshits and T. Zimmermann. Dynamine: Finding common error patterns by mining software revision histories. In Proc. of 13th Int. Symp. on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2005. [8] C. Liu, X. Yan, and J. Han. Mining control flow abnormality for logic error isolation. In In Proc. 2006 SIAM Int. Conf. on Data Mining, 2006. [9] C. Liu, X. Yan, H. Yu, J. Han, and P. S. Yu. Mining behavior graphs for ”backtrace” of noncrashing bugs. In SDM, 2005.

More Related