mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When LLMs Team Up: A Coordinated Attack Framework for Automated Cyber Intrusions

arXiv 2605.08763 ↗First posted 9 May 2026cs.CRcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Automated intrusion-style workflows require LLM agents to reason over partial observations, tool outputs, and executable artifacts under bounded budgets. A single LLM instance often compresses evidence extraction, planning, execution, and validation into one context, which increases the risk of context drift and error propagation. Existing LLM-based multi-agent systems support general collaboration, but they do not explicitly model the role boundaries, artifact provenance, and cost constraints that characterize multi-stage intrusion workflows. This paper presents CAESAR, a coordinated multi-agent framework for controlled analysis of LLM-agent behavior in intrusion-style tasks. CAESAR decomposes the workflow into five typed roles and coordinates them through a bounded round protocol with a persistent knowledge base, a per-round workspace, validator-gated knowledge promotion, and capability-token write isolation. We evaluate CAESAR on 25 CTF tasks across five categories and four LLM backends. Compared with a single-agent baseline under matched budgets and tool access, CAESAR improves task success and reduces performance variance, with larger gains on tasks requiring multi-step exploit composition. A secondary simulated interactional-security study suggests that the role structure can transfer beyond code-native surfaces. The results indicate that role transitions, artifact provenance, and knowledge-promotion events provide useful structural signals for monitoring coordinated LLM-agent behavior beyond individual prompt and output inspection. The dataset, implementation, and evaluation logs are released at https://github.com/Xu-Qiu/CMAS.

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. First posted on arXiv 9 May 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Where Cyber Agents Struggle: Bottleneck Analysis of Multi-Stage LLM Agents
  2. 2026LLM-Based Agents for Software and Systems Security: Approaches, Applications, and Assessment
  3. 2025Towards Effective Offensive Security LLM Agents: Hyperparameter Tuning, LLM as a Judge, and a Lightweight CTF Benchmark
  4. 2025The Evolution of Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: From Single LLM Reasoners to Multi-Agent Systems and Autonomous Pipelines
  5. 2026Agentic Security: A Systematization of Tools, Failure Modes, and Design Laws for LLM-Driven Penetration Testing
  6. 2025Guided Reasoning in LLM-Driven Penetration Testing Using Structured Attack Trees
  7. 2026ChainFuzzer: Greybox Fuzzing for Workflow-Level Multi-Tool Vulnerabilities in LLM Agents
  8. 2025MALCDF: A Distributed Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Real-Time Cyber