Can LLMs Hack Enterprise Networks? Autonomous Assumed Breach Penetration-Testing Active Directory Networks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Enterprise penetration-testing is often limited by high operational costs and the scarcity of human expertise. This paper investigates the feasibility and effectiveness of using Large Language Model (LLM)-driven autonomous systems to address these challenges in real-world Active Directory (AD) enterprise networks. We introduce a novel prototype designed to employ LLMs to autonomously perform Assumed Breach penetration-testing against enterprise networks. Our system represents the first demonstration of a fully autonomous, LLM-driven framework capable of compromising accounts within a real-life Microsoft Active Directory testbed, GOAD. We perform our empirical evaluation using five LLMs, comparing reasoning to non-reasoning models as well as including open-weight models. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, incorporating insights from cybersecurity experts, we demonstrate that autonomous LLMs can effectively conduct Assumed Breach simulations. Key findings highlight their ability to dynamically adapt attack strategies, perform inter-context attacks (e.g., web-app audits, social engineering, and unstructured data analysis for credentials), and generate scenario-specific attack parameters like realistic password candidates. The prototype exhibits robust self-correction mechanisms, installing missing tools and rectifying invalid command generations. We find that the associated costs are competitive with, and often significantly lower than, those incurred by professional human pen-testers, suggesting a path toward democratizing access to essential security testing for organizations with budgetary constraints. However, our research also illuminates existing limitations, including instances of LLM ``going down rabbit holes'', challenges in comprehensive information transfer between planning and execution modules, and critical safety concerns that necessitate human oversight.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 7; 2026: 5.
12 papers.
- 2025A Survey on Agentic Security: Applications, Threats and Defensescited by 17
- 2025Benchmarking Practices in LLM-driven Offensive Security: Testbeds, Metrics, and Experiment Designcited by 13
- 2025AutoPentest: Enhancing Vulnerability Management With Autonomous LLM Agentscited by 8
- 2026What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?cited by 8
- 2025PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirementscited by 7
- 2025PoCo: Agentic Proof-of-Concept Exploit Generation for Smart Contractscited by 7
- 2025Pentest-R1: Towards Autonomous Penetration Testing Reasoning Optimized via Two-Stage Reinforcement Learningcited by 4
- 2026Cochise: A Reference Harness for Autonomous Penetration Testingcited by 3
- 2026AEGIS: White-Box Attack Path Generation using LLMs and Training Effectiveness Evaluation for Large-Scale Cyber Defence Exercisescited by 1
- 2026Enhancing Linux Privilege Escalation Attack Capabilities of Local LLM Agentscited by 1
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Securitycited by 1
- 2025Recognition Without Mitigation: Ethical Frameworks in Autonomous Offensive-LLM Agent Researchcited by 0
- 2026The Ethics of Autonomous AI Agents for Offensive Security22 Jul 2026
- 2026Cochise: A Reference Harness for Autonomous Penetration Testing12 May 2026
- 2026Enhancing Linux Privilege Escalation Attack Capabilities of Local LLM Agents29 Apr 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
- 2025PoCo: Agentic Proof-of-Concept Exploit Generation for Smart Contracts4 Nov 2025
- 2025A Survey on Agentic Security: Applications, Threats and Defenses7 Oct 2025
- 2025Pentest-R1: Towards Autonomous Penetration Testing Reasoning Optimized via Two-Stage Reinforcement Learning10 Aug 2025
- 2025PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirements4 Aug 2025
- 2025Recognition Without Mitigation: Ethical Frameworks in Autonomous Offensive-LLM Agent Research10 Jun 2025
- 2025AutoPentest: Enhancing Vulnerability Management With Autonomous LLM Agents15 May 2025
- 2025Benchmarking Practices in LLM-driven Offensive Security: Testbeds, Metrics, and Experiment Design14 Apr 2025