mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Cyber Defense Benchmark: Agentic Threat Hunting Evaluation for LLMs in SecOps

arXiv 2604.19533 ↗First posted 21 Apr 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 4

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

  1. 2026SIR-Bench: Evaluating Investigation Depth in Security Incident Response Agents13 Apr
  2. 2025ExCyTIn-Bench: Evaluating LLM agents on Cyber Threat Investigation14 Jul

Other references · 3

  1. 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 238
  2. 2023Getting pwn'd by AI: Penetration Testing with Large Language Modelscited by 83
  3. 2024SecBench: A Comprehensive Multi-Dimensional Benchmarking Dataset for LLMs in Cybersecuritycited by 21

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning
  2. 2026Systematic Capability Benchmarking of Frontier Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Tasks
  3. 2025Benchmarking LLMs in an Embodied Environment for Blue Team Threat Hunting
  4. 2026CyBiasBench: Benchmarking Bias in LLM Agents for Cyber-Attack Scenarios
  5. 2025AttackSeqBench: Benchmarking the Capabilities of LLMs for Attack Sequences Understanding
  6. 2026CTFusion: A CTF-based Benchmark for LLM Agent Evaluation
  7. 2025Benchmarking LLM-Assisted Blue Teaming via Standardized Threat Hunting
  8. 2025DefenderBench: A Toolkit for Evaluating Language Agents in Cybersecurity Environments