mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning

arXiv 2509.20166 ↗First posted 24 Sep 2025cs.CR cs.AIcited by 12

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

Abstract (arXiv)

Today's cyber defenders are overwhelmed by a deluge of security alerts, threat intelligence signals, and shifting business context, creating an urgent need for AI systems to enhance operational security work. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to automate and scale Security Operations Center (SOC) operations, existing evaluations do not fully assess the scenarios most relevant to real-world defenders. This lack of informed evaluation impacts both AI developers and those applying LLMs to SOC automation. Without clear insight into LLM performance in real-world security scenarios, developers lack a north star for development, and users cannot reliably select the most effective models. Meanwhile, malicious actors are using AI to scale cyber attacks, highlighting the need for open source benchmarks to drive adoption and community-driven improvement among defenders and model developers. To address this, we introduce CyberSOCEval, a new suite of open source benchmarks within CyberSecEval 4. CyberSOCEval includes benchmarks tailored to evaluate LLMs in two tasks: Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning--core defensive domains with inadequate coverage in current benchmarks. Our evaluations show that larger, more modern LLMs tend to perform better, confirming the training scaling laws paradigm. We also find that reasoning models leveraging test time scaling do not achieve the same boost as in coding and math, suggesting these models have not been trained to reason about cybersecurity analysis, and pointing to a key opportunity for improvement. Finally, current LLMs are far from saturating our evaluations, showing that CyberSOCEval presents a significant challenge for AI developers to improve cyber defense capabilities.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 3 of its 9 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2025.

Builds on

3 of 9 references.

References · 3

  1. 2024CTIBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cyber Threat Intelligencecited by 62
  2. 2024CyberMetric: A Benchmark Dataset based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Evaluating LLMs in Cybersecurity Knowledgecited by 55
  3. 2024SEvenLLM: Benchmarking, Eliciting, and Enhancing Abilities of Large Language Models in Cyber Threat Intelligencecited by 22

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 9.

12 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Cyber Defense Benchmark: Agentic Threat Hunting Evaluation for LLMs in SecOps
  2. 2025AthenaBench: A Dynamic Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cyber Threat Intelligence
  3. 2025AttackSeqBench: Benchmarking the Capabilities of LLMs for Attack Sequences Understanding
  4. 2025OCCULT: Evaluating Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Operation Capabilities
  5. 2025Cybersecurity AI Benchmark (CAIBench): A Meta-Benchmark for Evaluating Cybersecurity AI Agents
  6. 2024CyberSecEval 2: A Wide-Ranging Cybersecurity Evaluation Suite for Large Language Models
  7. 2026Systematic Capability Benchmarking of Frontier Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Tasks
  8. 2026Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative AI in Cybersecurity and Privacy: A Survey of Dual-Use Risks, AI-Generated Malware, Explainability, and Defensive Strategies