mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Systematic Capability Benchmarking of Frontier Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Tasks

arXiv 2604.17159 ↗First posted 18 Apr 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

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

  1. 2025CRAKEN: Cybersecurity LLM Agent with Knowledge-Based Execution21 May
  2. 2025BountyBench: Dollar Impact of AI Agent Attackers and Defenders on Real-World Cybersecurity Systems21 May
  3. 2025D-CIPHER: Dynamic Collaborative Intelligent Multi-Agent System with Planner and Heterogeneous Executors for Offensive Security15 Feb
  4. 2024EnIGMA: Interactive Tools Substantially Assist LM Agents in Finding Security Vulnerabilities24 Sep
  5. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Hack Websites6 Feb

Other references · 4

  1. 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
  2. 2024NYU CTF Bench: A Scalable Open-Source Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating LLMs in Offensive Securitycited by 90
  3. 2024An Empirical Evaluation of LLMs for Solving Offensive Security Challengescited by 33
  4. 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

  1. 2026Autonomous LLM Agents & CTFs: A Second Look
  2. 2026ZeroDayBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Unseen Zero-Day Vulnerabilities for Cyberdefense
  3. 2026Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agents
  4. 2026Cyber Defense Benchmark: Agentic Threat Hunting Evaluation for LLMs in SecOps
  5. 2024Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB): Robustly Evaluating LLM Agent Cyber Offense Capabilities
  6. 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks
  7. 2024HackSynth: LLM Agent and Evaluation Framework for Autonomous Penetration Testing
  8. 2025Cyber-Zero: Training Cybersecurity Agents without Runtime