LLM Agents for Automated Web Vulnerability Reproduction: Are We There Yet?
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in software engineering and cybersecurity tasks, including code generation, vulnerability discovery, and automated testing. One critical but underexplored application is automated web vulnerability reproduction, which transforms vulnerability reports into working exploits. Although recent advances suggest promising potential, challenges remain in applying LLM agents to real-world web vulnerability reproduction scenarios. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art LLM agents for automated web vulnerability reproduction. We systematically assess 20 agents from software engineering, cybersecurity, and general domains across 16 dimensions, including technical capabilities, environment adaptability, and user experience factors, on 3 representative web vulnerabilities. Based on the results, we select three top-performing agents (OpenHands, SWE-agent, and CAI) for in-depth evaluation on our benchmark dataset of 80 real-world CVEs spanning 7 vulnerability types and 6 web technologies. Our results reveal that while LLM agents achieve reasonable success on simple library-based vulnerabilities, they consistently fail on complex service-based vulnerabilities requiring multi-component environments. Complex environment configurations and authentication barriers create a gap where agents can execute exploit code but fail to trigger actual vulnerabilities. We observe high sensitivity to input guidance, with performance degrading by over 33% under incomplete authentication information. Our findings highlight the significant gap between current LLM agent capabilities and the demands of reliable automated vulnerability reproduction, emphasizing the need for advances in environmental adaptation and autonomous problem-solving capabilities.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 29 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Oct 2025.
Builds on
29 of 74 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks13 Jun
- 2024PentestAgent: Incorporating LLM Agents to Automated Penetration Testing7 Nov
- 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilities2 Jun
- 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilities11 Apr
- 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Hack Websites6 Feb
Other references · 24
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,628
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2023HuggingGPT: Solving AI Tasks with ChatGPT and its Friends in Hugging Facecited by 1,173
- 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agentscited by 956
- 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 527
12 more
- 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agentscited by 400
- 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPTcited by 255
- 2024IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 100
- 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
- 2023Large Language Models are Few-Shot Summarizers: Multi-Intent Comment Generation via In-Context Learningcited by 71
- 2024RepoAgent: An LLM-Powered Open-Source Framework for Repository-level Code Documentation Generationcited by 69
- 2024LLM4Vuln: A Unified Evaluation Framework for Decoupling and Enhancing LLMs' Vulnerability Reasoningcited by 57
- 2023Large Language Model-Powered Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection: New Perspectivescited by 48
- 2025SecVulEval: Benchmarking LLMs for Real-World C/C++ Vulnerability Detectioncited by 19
- 2025JsDeObsBench: Measuring and Benchmarking LLMs for JavaScript Deobfuscationcited by 7
- 2025LLM-Assisted Model-Based Fuzzing of Protocol Implementationscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Execution-State-Aware LLM Reasoning for Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generationcited by 3
- 2026Are Frontier LLMs Ready for Cybersecurity? Evidence for Vertical Foundation Models from Dual-Mode Vulnerability Benchmarkscited by 0
- 2026FORGE: Multi-Agent Graduated Exploitation and Detection Engineeringcited by 0
- 2026The History Is the Detector: Executing CVE Patch History, End-to-Endcited by 0
- 2026The History Is the Detector: Executing CVE Patch History, End-to-End4 Sep 2026
- 2026FORGE: Multi-Agent Graduated Exploitation and Detection Engineering2 Jun 2026
- 2026Are Frontier LLMs Ready for Cybersecurity? Evidence for Vertical Foundation Models from Dual-Mode Vulnerability Benchmarks22 May 2026
- 2026Execution-State-Aware LLM Reasoning for Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation14 Feb 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ZeroDayBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Unseen Zero-Day Vulnerabilities for Cyberdefense
- 2025CVE-Bench: A Benchmark for AI Agents' Ability to Exploit Real-World Web Application Vulnerabilities
- 2025From LLMs to Agents: A Comparative Evaluation of LLMs and LLM-based Agents in Security Patch Detection
- 2026From Prompt Injection to Web Exploitation: Revisiting Classic Vulnerabilities in LLM-Integrated Applications
- 2026Assessing Spear-Phishing Website Generation in Large Language Model Coding Agents
- 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
- 2024AutoSafeCoder: A Multi-Agent Framework for Securing LLM Code Generation through Static Analysis and Fuzz Testing
- 2026An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Based Approaches for Code Vulnerability Detection: RAG, SFT, and Dual-Agent Systems