AutoPT: How Far Are We from the End2End Automated Web Penetration Testing?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Penetration testing is essential to ensure Web security, which can detect and fix vulnerabilities in advance, and prevent data leakage and serious consequences. The powerful inference capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in various fields, and the development potential of LLM-based agents can revolutionize the cybersecurity penetration testing industry. In this work, we establish a comprehensive end-to-end penetration testing benchmark using a real-world penetration testing environment to explore the capabilities of LLM-based agents in this domain. Our results reveal that the agents are familiar with the framework of penetration testing tasks, but they still face limitations in generating accurate commands and executing complete processes. Accordingly, we summarize the current challenges, including the difficulty of maintaining the entire message history and the tendency for the agent to become stuck. Based on the above insights, we propose a Penetration testing State Machine (PSM) that utilizes the Finite State Machine (FSM) methodology to address these limitations. Then, we introduce AutoPT, an automated penetration testing agent based on the principle of PSM driven by LLMs, which utilizes the inherent inference ability of LLM and the constraint framework of state machines. Our evaluation results show that AutoPT outperforms the baseline framework ReAct on the GPT-4o mini model and improves the task completion rate from 22% to 41% on the benchmark target. Compared with the baseline framework and manual work, AutoPT also reduces time and economic costs further. Hence, our AutoPT has facilitated the development of automated penetration testing and significantly impacted both academia and industry.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Nov 2024.
Builds on
14 of 61 references.
References · 14
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2024Personal LLM Agents: Insights and Survey about the Capability, Efficiency and Securitycited by 257
- 2024LLM Inference Unveiled: Survey and Roofline Model Insightscited by 147
- 2023PentestGPT: An LLM-empowered Automatic Penetration Testing Toolcited by 94
- 2024NYU CTF Bench: A Scalable Open-Source Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating LLMs in Offensive Securitycited by 90
- 2023LLMs as Hackers: Autonomous Linux Privilege Escalation Attackscited by 25
- 2023How Effective Are They? Exploring Large Language Model Based Fuzz Driver Generationcited by 21
- 2023Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Managementcited by 19
- 2024SCALE: Constructing Structured Natural Language Comment Trees for Software Vulnerability Detectioncited by 17
- 2023Understanding Hackers' Work: An Empirical Study of Offensive Security Practitionerscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 4.
7 papers.
- 2025Benchmarking Practices in LLM-driven Offensive Security: Testbeds, Metrics, and Experiment Designcited by 13
- 2026What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?cited by 8
- 2025Automated Penetration Testing with LLM Agents and Classical Planningcited by 4
- 2025Cybersecurity AI: Evaluating Agentic Cybersecurity in Attack/Defense CTFscited by 1
- 2026AEGIS: White-Box Attack Path Generation using LLMs and Training Effectiveness Evaluation for Large-Scale Cyber Defence Exercisescited by 1
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Securitycited by 1
- 2026From Runnable to Verifiable: An Independent Reproducibility Study of LLM/Agent-Driven Vulnerability Validation Artifactscited by 0
- 2026From Runnable to Verifiable: An Independent Reproducibility Study of LLM/Agent-Driven Vulnerability Validation Artifacts10 Aug 2026
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Security22 Jul 2026
- 2026What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?19 Feb 2026
- 2026AEGIS: White-Box Attack Path Generation using LLMs and Training Effectiveness Evaluation for Large-Scale Cyber Defence Exercises30 Jan 2026
- 2025Automated Penetration Testing with LLM Agents and Classical Planning11 Dec 2025
- 2025Cybersecurity AI: Evaluating Agentic Cybersecurity in Attack/Defense CTFs20 Oct 2025
- 2025Benchmarking Practices in LLM-driven Offensive Security: Testbeds, Metrics, and Experiment Design14 Apr 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Hackers or Hallucinators? A Comprehensive Analysis of LLM-Based Automated Penetration Testing
- 2026APT-Agent: Automated Penetration Testing using Large Language Models
- 2025AutoPentest: Enhancing Vulnerability Management With Autonomous LLM Agents
- 2024HackSynth: LLM Agent and Evaluation Framework for Autonomous Penetration Testing
- 2024PentestAgent: Incorporating LLM Agents to Automated Penetration Testing
- 2025Guided Reasoning in LLM-Driven Penetration Testing Using Structured Attack Trees
- 2025AutoPentester: An LLM Agent-based Framework for Automated Pentesting
- 2025From Capabilities to Performance: Evaluating Key Functional Properties of LLM Architectures in Penetration Testing