Cyber Defense Benchmark: Agentic Threat Hunting Evaluation for LLMs in SecOps
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce the Cyber Defense Benchmark, a benchmark for measuring how well large language model (LLM) agents perform the core SOC analyst task of threat hunting: given a database of raw Windows event logs with no guided questions or hints, identify the exact timestamps of malicious events. The benchmark wraps 106 real attack procedures from the OTRF Security-Datasets corpus - spanning 86 MITRE ATT&CK sub-techniques across 12 tactics - into a Gymnasium reinforcement-learning environment. Each episode presents the agent with an in-memory SQLite database of 75,000-135,000 log records produced by a deterministic campaign simulator that time-shifts and entity-obfuscates the raw recordings. The agent must iteratively submit SQL queries to discover malicious event timestamps and explicitly flag them, scored CTF-style against Sigma-rule-derived ground truth. Evaluating five frontier models - Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and Gemini 3 Flash - on 26 campaigns covering 105 of 106 procedures, we find that all models fail dramatically: the best model (Claude Opus 4.6) submits correct flags for only 3.8% of malicious events on average, and no run across any model ever finds all flags. We define a passing score as >= 50% recall on every ATT&CK tactic - the minimum bar for unsupervised SOC deployment. No model passes: the leader clears this bar on 5 of 13 tactics and the remaining four on zero. These results suggest that current LLMs are poorly suited for open-ended, evidence-driven threat hunting despite strong performance on curated Q&A security benchmarks.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2026.
Builds on
5 of 17 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026SIR-Bench: Evaluating Investigation Depth in Security Incident Response Agents13 Apr
- 2025ExCyTIn-Bench: Evaluating LLM agents on Cyber Threat Investigation14 Jul
Other references · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026DiagChain: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agents on Evidence-Grounded Attack Chain Reconstructioncited by 3
- 2026Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agentscited by 1
- 2026Coding Agents Aren't Enough! Evaluating an Enterprise Security Brain for Agentic Cloud Investigationscited by 1
- 2026Operationalizing Cyber Threat Intelligence with GraphRAGcited by 0
- 2026Coding Agents Aren't Enough! Evaluating an Enterprise Security Brain for Agentic Cloud Investigations24 Sep 2026
- 2026Operationalizing Cyber Threat Intelligence with GraphRAG13 Aug 2026
- 2026DiagChain: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agents on Evidence-Grounded Attack Chain Reconstruction4 Aug 2026
- 2026Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agents16 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning
- 2026Systematic Capability Benchmarking of Frontier Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Tasks
- 2025Benchmarking LLMs in an Embodied Environment for Blue Team Threat Hunting
- 2026CyBiasBench: Benchmarking Bias in LLM Agents for Cyber-Attack Scenarios
- 2025AttackSeqBench: Benchmarking the Capabilities of LLMs for Attack Sequences Understanding
- 2026CTFusion: A CTF-based Benchmark for LLM Agent Evaluation
- 2025Benchmarking LLM-Assisted Blue Teaming via Standardized Threat Hunting
- 2025DefenderBench: A Toolkit for Evaluating Language Agents in Cybersecurity Environments