PenForge: On-the-Fly Expert Agent Construction for Automated Penetration Testing
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Penetration testing is essential for identifying vulnerabilities in web applications before real adversaries can exploit them. Recent work has explored automating this process with Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agents, but existing approaches either rely on a single generic agent that struggles in complex scenarios or narrowly specialized agents that cannot adapt to diverse vulnerability types. We therefore introduce PenForge, a framework that dynamically constructs expert agents during testing rather than relying on those prepared beforehand. By integrating automated reconnaissance of potential attack surfaces with agents instantiated on the fly for context-aware exploitation, PenForge achieves a 30.0% exploit success rate (12/40) on CVE-Bench in the particularly challenging zero-day setting, which is a 3 times improvement over the state-of-the-art. Our analysis also identifies three opportunities for future work: (1) supplying richer tool-usage knowledge to improve exploitation effectiveness; (2) extending benchmarks to include more vulnerabilities and attack types; and (3) fostering developer trust by incorporating explainable mechanisms and human review. As an emerging result with substantial potential impact, PenForge embodies the early-stage yet paradigm-shifting idea of on-the-fly agent construction, marking its promise as a step toward scalable and effective LLM-driven penetration testing.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 13 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jan 2026.
Builds on
13 of 26 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Cyber-Zero: Training Cybersecurity Agents without Runtime29 Jul
- 2025CVE-Bench: A Benchmark for AI Agents' Ability to Exploit Real-World Web Application Vulnerabilities21 Mar
- 2025VulnBot: Autonomous Penetration Testing for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework23 Jan
- 2024PentestAgent: Incorporating LLM Agents to Automated Penetration Testing7 Nov
- 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilities2 Jun
Other references · 8
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
- 2024LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision and the Road Aheadcited by 155
- 2023PentestGPT: An LLM-empowered Automatic Penetration Testing Toolcited by 94
- 2023Trustworthy and Synergistic Artificial Intelligence for Software Engineering: Vision and Roadmapscited by 19
- 2024Efficient and Green Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision, and the Road Aheadcited by 17
- 2025Agentic AI for Software: thoughts from Software Engineering communitycited by 10
- 2025Back to the Basics: Rethinking Issue-Commit Linking with LLM-Assisted Retrievalcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026APT-Agent: Automated Penetration Testing using Large Language Models
- 2026AWE: Adaptive Agents for Dynamic Web Penetration Testing
- 2025PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirements
- 2025AutoPentester: An LLM Agent-based Framework for Automated Pentesting
- 2025xOffense: An Autonomous Multi-Agent Framework for Penetration Testing with Domain-Adapted Large Language Models
- 2026From Capability to Assurance in Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: A Framework and Reference Implementation
- 2026What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?
- 2024AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents