Systematic Capability Benchmarking of Frontier Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Tasks
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
We present, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive cross-model evaluation of LLM agents on offensive cybersecurity tasks, benchmarking 10 frontier models from 7 providers on all 200 challenges of the NYU CTF Bench. Building on the D-CIPHER multi-agent framework, we extend it with multi-provider backend support, a custom Kali Linux environment with over 100 pre-installed penetration testing tools, and runtime tool-discovery agents. Through a controlled factorial study, we find that the Kali Linux environment yields a +9.5 percentage-point improvement over Ubuntu, while auto-prompting and category-specific tips often degrade performance in well-equipped environments. Among models, Claude 4.5 Opus achieves the highest solve rate (59%), followed by Gemini 3 Pro (52%), with Gemini 3 Flash offering the best cost-efficiency at 0.05 per solve. Asymmetric planner/executor model assignments provide no meaningful benefit while coherent same-model configurations consistently outperform mixed-tier pairings. Our results indicate that environment tooling and model selection emerge as the strongest drivers of performance, whereas prompt engineering interventions show diminishing or negative returns in well-equipped environments. Reported performance reflects both model reasoning ability and compatibility with agent tooling and API integration.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Apr 2026.
Builds on
9 of 15 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2025CRAKEN: Cybersecurity LLM Agent with Knowledge-Based Execution21 May
- 2025BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems21 May
- 2025D-CIPHER: Dynamic Collaborative Intelligent Multi-Agent System with Planner and Heterogeneous Executors for Offensive Security15 Feb
- 2024EnIGMA: Interactive Tools Substantially Assist LM Agents in Finding Security Vulnerabilities24 Sep
- 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Hack Websites6 Feb
Other references · 4
- 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
- 2024NYU CTF Bench: A Scalable Open-Source Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating LLMs in Offensive Securitycited by 90
- 2024An Empirical Evaluation of LLMs for Solving Offensive Security Challengescited by 33
- 2025OCCULT: Evaluating Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Operation Capabilitiescited by 12
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Autonomous LLM Agents & CTFs: A Second Look
- 2026ZeroDayBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Unseen Zero-Day Vulnerabilities for Cyberdefense
- 2026Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agents
- 2026Cyber Defense Benchmark: Agentic Threat Hunting Evaluation for LLMs in SecOps
- 2024Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB): Robustly Evaluating LLM Agent Cyber Offense Capabilities
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks
- 2024HackSynth: LLM Agent and Evaluation Framework for Autonomous Penetration Testing
- 2025Cyber-Zero: Training Cybersecurity Agents without Runtime