Incalmo: An Autonomous LLM-assisted System for Red Teaming Multi-Host Networks
On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security
Abstract (arXiv)
Security operators use red teams to simulate real attackers and proactively find defense gaps. In realistic enterprise settings, this involves executing multi-host network attacks spanning many "stepping stone" hosts. Unfortunately, red teams are expensive and entail significant expertise and effort. Given the promise of LLMs in CTF challenges, we first analyze if LLMs can autonomously execute multi-host red team exercises. We find that state-of-the-art LLM-assisted offense systems (e.g., PentestGPT, CyberSecEval3) with leading LLMs (e.g., Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro) are unable to do so. Building on our observations in understanding the failure modes of state-of-the-art systems, we argue the need to improve the abstractions and interfaces for LLM-assisted red teaming. Based on this insight, we present the design and implementation of Incalmo, an LLM-assisted system for autonomously red teaming multi-host networks. Incalmo uses LLMs to plan red team exercises in terms of high-level declarative tasks that are executed by domain-specific task agents. Incalmo also uses auxiliary services to manage context and acquired assets. For our evaluation, we develop MHBench, a novel multi-host attack benchmark with 40 realistic emulated networks (from 22 to 50 hosts). We find that Incalmo successfully acquires critical assets (i.e., key hosts or data) in 37 out of 40 MHBench environments. In contrast, state-of-the-art LLM-assisted systems succeed in only 3 out of 40 environments. We show that Incalmo is efficient-successful attacks took 12-54 minutes and cost <15 in LLM credits.
Key facts. Cited by 17 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 25 of its 94 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jan 2025.
Builds on
25 of 94 references.
References · 25
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2022PAL: Program-aided Language Modelscited by 635
- 2025Humanity's Last Examcited by 467
- 2023Chameleon: Plug-and-Play Compositional Reasoning with Large Language Modelscited by 352
- 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 229
- 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
- 2024AutoAttacker: A Large Language Model Guided System to Implement Automatic Cyber-attackscited by 94
13 more
- 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilitiescited by 93
- 2024NYU CTF Bench: A Scalable Open-Source Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating LLMs in Offensive Securitycited by 90
- 2023Getting pwn'd by AI: Penetration Testing with Large Language Modelscited by 82
- 2024CYBERSECEVAL 3: Advancing the Evaluation of Cybersecurity Risks and Capabilities in Large Language Modelscited by 56
- 2023Semantic Anomaly Detection with Large Language Modelscited by 53
- 2024An Empirical Evaluation of LLMs for Solving Offensive Security Challengescited by 33
- 2024PenHeal: A Two-Stage LLM Framework for Automated Pentesting and Optimal Remediationcited by 30
- 2025VulnBot: Autonomous Penetration Testing for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 30
- 2024Measure-Observe-Remeasure: An Interactive Paradigm for Differentially-Private Exploratory Analysiscited by 19
- 2024Evaluating Large Language Models' Capability to Launch Fully Automated Spear Phishing Campaigns: Validated on Human Subjectscited by 17
- 2024Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB): Robustly Evaluating LLM Agent Cyber Offense Capabilitiescited by 12
- 2024SoK: On the Offensive Potential of AIcited by 5
- 2020HARMer: Cyber-attacks Automation and Evaluationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 14.
17 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2025A Framework for Evaluating Emerging Cyberattack Capabilities of AIcited by 15
- 2025OCCULT: Evaluating Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Operation Capabilitiescited by 12
- 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestrationcited by 11
- 2025Asynchronous Reasoning: Training-Free Interactive Thinking LLMscited by 6
- 2026AgentCyberRange: Benchmarking Frontier AI Systems in Realistic Cyber Rangescited by 4
- 2026Cochise: A Reference Harness for Autonomous Penetration Testingcited by 3
- 2026AI Agents Enable Adaptive Computer Wormscited by 2
- 2026A New Framework for Cybersecurity Refusals in AI Agentscited by 1
- 2026Security and Privacy Prompts in the Wild: What Users Ask LLMs and How LLMs Respondcited by 1
- 2026Decoupling Reconnaissance and Exploitation: Measuring the Capability Boundaries of LLM-Based Web Penetration Testingcited by 1
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Securitycited by 1
- 2026CyberEvolver: Structured Self-Evolution for Cybersecurity Agents On the Flycited by 0
5 more
- 2026Red-Teaming the Agentic Red-Teamcited by 0
- 2026Chai: Agentic Discovery of Cryptographic Misuse Vulnerabilitiescited by 0
- 2026BlueSTAR: Tiered Agentic Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defensecited by 0
- 2026Automating Attack Graph Construction for Agentic Pentesting. Towards Neuro-Symbolic Vulnerability Huntingcited by 0
- 2026Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectivescited by 0
- 2026Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectives15 Sep 2026
- 2026Automating Attack Graph Construction for Agentic Pentesting. Towards Neuro-Symbolic Vulnerability Hunting14 Sep 2026
- 2026BlueSTAR: Tiered Agentic Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defense10 Sep 2026
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Security22 Jul 2026
- 2026Chai: Agentic Discovery of Cryptographic Misuse Vulnerabilities25 Jun 2026
- 2026Decoupling Reconnaissance and Exploitation: Measuring the Capability Boundaries of LLM-Based Web Penetration Testing24 Jun 2026
- 2026Red-Teaming the Agentic Red-Team23 Jun 2026
- 2026Security and Privacy Prompts in the Wild: What Users Ask LLMs and How LLMs Respond16 Jun 2026
- 2026AgentCyberRange: Benchmarking Frontier AI Systems in Realistic Cyber Ranges12 Jun 2026
- 2026AI Agents Enable Adaptive Computer Worms2 Jun 2026
- 2026A New Framework for Cybersecurity Refusals in AI Agents31 May 2026
- 2026CyberEvolver: Structured Self-Evolution for Cybersecurity Agents On the Fly25 May 2026
5 more
- 2026Cochise: A Reference Harness for Autonomous Penetration Testing12 May 2026
- 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestration24 Mar 2026
- 2025Asynchronous Reasoning: Training-Free Interactive Thinking LLMs11 Dec 2025
- 2025A Framework for Evaluating Emerging Cyberattack Capabilities of AI14 Mar 2025
- 2025OCCULT: Evaluating Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Operation Capabilities18 Feb 2025
- 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestrationcited by 11
- 2026AI Agents Enable Adaptive Computer Wormscited by 2
- 2026A New Framework for Cybersecurity Refusals in AI Agentscited by 1
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Securitycited by 1
- 2026CyberEvolver: Structured Self-Evolution for Cybersecurity Agents On the Flycited by 0
- 2026Red-Teaming the Agentic Red-Teamcited by 0
- 2026Chai: Agentic Discovery of Cryptographic Misuse Vulnerabilitiescited by 0
- 2026BlueSTAR: Tiered Agentic Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defensecited by 0
- 2026Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectivescited by 0
- 2026Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectives15 Sep 2026
- 2026BlueSTAR: Tiered Agentic Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defense10 Sep 2026
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Security22 Jul 2026
- 2026Chai: Agentic Discovery of Cryptographic Misuse Vulnerabilities25 Jun 2026
- 2026Red-Teaming the Agentic Red-Team23 Jun 2026
- 2026AI Agents Enable Adaptive Computer Worms2 Jun 2026
- 2026A New Framework for Cybersecurity Refusals in AI Agents31 May 2026
- 2026CyberEvolver: Structured Self-Evolution for Cybersecurity Agents On the Fly25 May 2026
- 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestration24 Mar 2026
- 2025A Framework for Evaluating Emerging Cyberattack Capabilities of AIcited by 15
- 2025OCCULT: Evaluating Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Operation Capabilitiescited by 12
- 2026AgentCyberRange: Benchmarking Frontier AI Systems in Realistic Cyber Rangescited by 4
- 2026Cochise: A Reference Harness for Autonomous Penetration Testingcited by 3
- 2026Security and Privacy Prompts in the Wild: What Users Ask LLMs and How LLMs Respondcited by 1
- 2026Decoupling Reconnaissance and Exploitation: Measuring the Capability Boundaries of LLM-Based Web Penetration Testingcited by 1
- 2026Decoupling Reconnaissance and Exploitation: Measuring the Capability Boundaries of LLM-Based Web Penetration Testing24 Jun 2026
- 2026Security and Privacy Prompts in the Wild: What Users Ask LLMs and How LLMs Respond16 Jun 2026
- 2026AgentCyberRange: Benchmarking Frontier AI Systems in Realistic Cyber Ranges12 Jun 2026
- 2026Cochise: A Reference Harness for Autonomous Penetration Testing12 May 2026
- 2025A Framework for Evaluating Emerging Cyberattack Capabilities of AI14 Mar 2025
- 2025OCCULT: Evaluating Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Operation Capabilities18 Feb 2025