Shell or Nothing: Real-World Benchmarks and Memory-Activated Agents for Automated Penetration Testing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Penetration testing is critical for identifying and mitigating security vulnerabilities, yet traditional approaches remain expensive, time-consuming, and dependent on expert human labor. Recent work has explored AI-driven pentesting agents, but their evaluation relies on oversimplified capture-the-flag (CTF) settings that embed prior knowledge and reduce complexity, leading to performance estimates far from real-world practice. We close this gap by introducing the first real-world, agent-oriented pentesting benchmark, TermiBench, which shifts the goal from 'flag finding' to achieving full system control. The benchmark spans 510 hosts across 25 services and 30 CVEs, with realistic environments that require autonomous reconnaissance, discrimination between benign and exploitable services, and robust exploit execution. Using this benchmark, we find that existing systems can hardly obtain system shells under realistic conditions. To address these challenges, we propose TermiAgent, a multi-agent penetration testing framework. TermiAgent mitigates long-context forgetting with a Located Memory Activation mechanism and builds a reliable exploit arsenal via structured code understanding rather than naive retrieval. In evaluations, our work outperforms state-of-the-art agents, exhibiting stronger penetration testing capability, reducing execution time and financial cost, and demonstrating practicality even on laptop-scale deployments. Our work delivers both the first open-source benchmark for real-world autonomous pentesting and a novel agent framework that establishes a milestone for AI-driven penetration testing.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 7.
8 papers.
- 2025Comparing AI Agents to Cybersecurity Professionals in Real-World Penetration Testingcited by 15
- 2026What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?cited by 10
- 2026Hackers or Hallucinators? A Comprehensive Analysis of LLM-Based Automated Penetration Testingcited by 4
- 2026A New Framework for Cybersecurity Refusals in AI Agentscited by 1
- 2026Beyond End-to-End Success: Diagnosing Failures in Long-Horizon Security LLM Agentscited by 1
- 2026From Controlled to the Wild: Evaluation of Pentesting Agents for the Real-Worldcited by 0
- 2026CyberEvolver: Structured Self-Evolution for Cybersecurity Agents On the Flycited by 0
- 2026From Runnable to Verifiable: An Independent Reproducibility Study of LLM/Agent-Driven Vulnerability Validation Artifactscited by 0
- 2026Beyond End-to-End Success: Diagnosing Failures in Long-Horizon Security LLM Agents20 Aug 2026
- 2026From Runnable to Verifiable: An Independent Reproducibility Study of LLM/Agent-Driven Vulnerability Validation Artifacts10 Aug 2026
- 2026A New Framework for Cybersecurity Refusals in AI Agents31 May 2026
- 2026CyberEvolver: Structured Self-Evolution for Cybersecurity Agents On the Fly25 May 2026
- 2026From Controlled to the Wild: Evaluation of Pentesting Agents for the Real-World11 May 2026
- 2026Hackers or Hallucinators? A Comprehensive Analysis of LLM-Based Automated Penetration Testing7 Apr 2026
- 2026What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?19 Feb 2026
- 2025Comparing AI Agents to Cybersecurity Professionals in Real-World Penetration Testing10 Dec 2025