Fuzzing in Memory-Safe Languages
Test with confidence.
Fuzzing in memory-safe languages like Rust and Go has evolved beyond hunting memory corruption. Modern fuzzers target logic errors, panics, and concurrency bugs while property-based testing provides semantic validation. This series explores how these techniques complement each other in building reliable software.
Memory-safe languages eliminate buffer overflows and use-after-free bugs by design, yet complex software still harbors logic flaws, race conditions, and algorithmic vulnerabilities. Fuzzing has adapted to find these issues, while property-based testing provides structured approaches to correctness validation.
The convergence of these techniques creates powerful hybrid approaches that combine coverage-guided exploration with semantic assertions.
Why
-
Memory safety is a baseline, not a destination. Rust’s trophy case shows fuzzers finding critical bugs in memory-safe code - panics, infinite loops, and logic errors that escaped traditional testing.
-
Google’s OSS-Fuzz has expanded beyond C/C++ to target Rust and Go projects, finding hundreds of bugs and proving that systematic input exploration remains vital for any complex software.
-
Property-based testing provides semantic precision that complements fuzzing’s brute-force thoroughness. Tools like Rust’s bolero, and Go’s native fuzzing merge these approaches for comprehensive validation.
Articles
This series examines fuzzing and property testing in memory-safe languages, from motivation through practical implementation to hybrid techniques:
- Part 1 - Why fuzzing still matters in memory-safe languages
- Part 2 - Coverage-guided fuzzing in Rust and Go
- Part 3 - Property-based testing in Rust and Go
- Part 4 - Fuzzing meets property testing
Prerequisites
Rust and Go development environments are recommended for following along with examples. Basic familiarity with testing concepts and either language helps, though examples are designed to be accessible. Knowledge of traditional fuzzing tools like AFL or libFuzzer is useful but not required.
Feedback
The techniques explored in this series build on decades of research and practical experience with testing tools:
QuickCheck, AFL, libFuzzer, proptest, Hypothesis, cargo-fuzz, from the perspective of applying these tools to real-world software and observing their evolution in memory-safe language ecosystems.
The goal is practical guidance for developers working with Rust and Go who want to leverage automated testing techniques for building more reliable software. Feedback and corrections are always welcome.
About the approach
"The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with judiciously placed print statements."
--Brian Kernighan
Fuzzing automates the “what if” scenarios that careful thought might miss, while property-based testing formalizes the invariants that print statements help verify. Together, they provide systematic approaches to software reliability that scale beyond manual debugging.