Comparing Heuristics, Constraint Optimization, and Reinforcement Learning for an Industrial 2D Packing Problem
Authors:
Stefan Böhm,
Martin Neumayer,
Oliver Kramer,
Alexander Schiendorfer,
Alois Knoll
Abstract:
Cutting and Packing problems are occurring in different industries with a direct impact on the revenue of businesses. Generally, the goal in Cutting and Packing is to assign a set of smaller objects to a set of larger objects. To solve Cutting and Packing problems, practitioners can resort to heuristic and exact methodologies. Lately, machine learning is increasingly used for solving such problems…
▽ More
Cutting and Packing problems are occurring in different industries with a direct impact on the revenue of businesses. Generally, the goal in Cutting and Packing is to assign a set of smaller objects to a set of larger objects. To solve Cutting and Packing problems, practitioners can resort to heuristic and exact methodologies. Lately, machine learning is increasingly used for solving such problems. This paper considers a 2D packing problem from the furniture industry, where a set of wooden workpieces must be assigned to different modules of a trolley in the most space-saving way. We present an experimental setup to compare heuristics, constraint optimization, and deep reinforcement learning for the given problem. The used methodologies and their results get collated in terms of their solution quality and runtime. In the given use case a greedy heuristic produces optimal results and outperforms the other approaches in terms of runtime. Constraint optimization also produces optimal results but requires more time to perform. The deep reinforcement learning approach did not always produce optimal or even feasible solutions. While we assume this could be remedied with more training, considering the good results with the heuristic, deep reinforcement learning seems to be a bad fit for the given use case.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
Analyzing Control Flow Integrity with LLVM-CFI
Authors:
Paul Muntean,
Matthias Neumayer,
Zhiqiang Lin,
Gang Tan,
Jens Grossklags,
Claudia Eckert
Abstract:
Control-flow hijacking attacks are used to perform malicious com-putations. Current solutions for assessing the attack surface afteracontrol flow integrity(CFI) policy was applied can measure onlyindirect transfer averages in the best case without providing anyinsights w.r.t. the absolute calltarget reduction per callsite, and gad-get availability. Further, tool comparison is underdeveloped or not…
▽ More
Control-flow hijacking attacks are used to perform malicious com-putations. Current solutions for assessing the attack surface afteracontrol flow integrity(CFI) policy was applied can measure onlyindirect transfer averages in the best case without providing anyinsights w.r.t. the absolute calltarget reduction per callsite, and gad-get availability. Further, tool comparison is underdeveloped or notpossible at all. CFI has proven to be one of the most promising pro-tections against control flow hijacking attacks, thus many effortshave been made to improve CFI in various ways. However, there isa lack of systematic assessment of existing CFI protections. In this paper, we presentLLVM-CFI, a static source code analy-sis framework for analyzing state-of-the-art static CFI protectionsbased on the Clang/LLVM compiler framework.LLVM-CFIworksby precisely modeling a CFI policy and then evaluating it within aunified approach.LLVM-CFIhelps determine the level of securityoffered by different CFI protections, after the CFI protections weredeployed, thus providing an important step towards exploit cre-ation/prevention and stronger defenses. We have usedLLVM-CFIto assess eight state-of-the-art static CFI defenses on real-worldprograms such as Google Chrome and Apache Httpd.LLVM-CFIprovides a precise analysis of the residual attack surfaces, andaccordingly ranks CFI policies against each other.LLVM-CFIalsosuccessfully paves the way towards construction of COOP-like codereuse attacks and elimination of the remaining attack surface bydisclosing protected calltargets under eight restrictive CFI policies.
△ Less
Submitted 2 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
