SBASH: a Framework for Designing and Evaluating RAG vs. Prompt-Tuned LLM Honeypots
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Honeypots are decoy systems used for gathering valuable threat intelligence or diverting attackers away from production systems. Maximising attacker engagement is essential to their utility. However research has highlighted that context-awareness, such as the ability to respond to new attack types, systems and attacker agents, is necessary to increase engagement. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown as one approach to increase context awareness but suffer from several challenges including accuracy and timeliness of response time, high operational costs and data-protection issues due to cloud deployment. We propose the System-Based Attention Shell Honeypot (SBASH) framework which manages data-protection issues through the use of lightweight local LLMs. We investigate the use of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) supported LLMs and non-RAG LLMs for Linux shell commands and evaluate them using several different metrics such as response time differences, realism from human testers, and similarity to a real system calculated with Levenshtein distance, SBert, and BertScore. We show that RAG improves accuracy for untuned models while models that have been tuned via a system prompt that tells the LLM to respond like a Linux system achieve without RAG a similar accuracy as untuned with RAG, while having a slightly lower latency.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Oct 2025.
Builds on
11 of 17 references.
References · 11
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 658
- 2024Unlocking Efficiency in Large Language Model Inference: A Comprehensive Survey of Speculative Decodingcited by 269
- 2024Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Surveycited by 146
- 2023A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 105
- 2024When LLMs Meet Cybersecurity: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 71
- 2022SBERT studies Meaning Representations: Decomposing Sentence Embeddings into Explainable Semantic Featurescited by 33
- 2023LLM in the Shell: Generative Honeypotscited by 19
- 2025Towards Supporting Penetration Testing Education with Large Language Models: an Evaluation and Comparisoncited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Enhancing Linux Privilege Escalation Attack Capabilities of Local LLM Agents
- 2026Honeyval: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for LLM-powered HTTP Honeypots
- 2024LLM Agent Honeypot: Monitoring AI Hacking Agents in the Wild
- 2026LLM-Based Penetration Testing in the Presence of Honeypots ↗
- 2025SoK: Systematizing LLM Prompt Security: Taxonomies, Datasets, and Unified Evaluation of Attacks and Defenses
- 2025On Automating Security Policies with Contemporary LLMs
- 2024HoneyGPT: Breaking the Trilemma in Terminal Honeypots with Large Language Model
- 2024System-Level Defense against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks: An Information Flow Control Perspective