From 542bea37fb79497ac3f4ea3411b2af4e5099c864 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: van Hauser Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:10:16 +0100 Subject: fix MDs --- docs/historical_notes.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'docs/historical_notes.md') diff --git a/docs/historical_notes.md b/docs/historical_notes.md index 2079698b..b5d3d157 100644 --- a/docs/historical_notes.md +++ b/docs/historical_notes.md @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ coverage-driven fuzzer that relied on coverage as a fitness function. Jared's approach was by no means identical to what afl-fuzz does, but it was in the same ballpark. His fuzzer tried to explicitly solve for the maximum coverage with a single input file; in comparison, afl simply selects for cases that do -something new (which yields better results - see technical_details.txt). +something new (which yields better results - see [technical_details.md](technical_details.md)). A few years later, Gabriel Campana released fuzzgrind, a tool that relied purely on Valgrind and a constraint solver to maximize coverage without any brute-force @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ several itches that seemed impossible to scratch with other tools: corpora of interesting test cases that can be fed into a manual testing process or a UI harness later on. -As mentioned in technical_details.txt, AFL does all this not by systematically +As mentioned in [technical_details.md](technical_details.md), AFL does all this not by systematically applying a single overarching CS concept, but by experimenting with a variety of small, complementary methods that were shown to reliably yields results better than chance. The use of instrumentation is a part of that toolkit, but is -- cgit 1.4.1