ThreatForest: Multi-Agent Attack Tree Generation with Pluggable TTP Framework Mapping
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Threat modeling is essential for secure software development, yet manual analysis of cloud-native architectures is slow and demands scarce security expertise. We present ThreatForest, a multi-agent system that generates structured attack trees from source code repositories, maps attack steps to adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) from a pluggable set of frameworks (MITRE ATT&CK, CAPEC, and cloud-specific threat matrices), and synthesizes actionable mitigations. ThreatForest decomposes threat modeling into a multi-stage agent pipeline -- repository analysis, context refinement, threat generation, parallel attack-tree construction with TTP mapping and mitigation synthesis, and report generation -- orchestrated as a directed graph with deterministic verification gates, bounded retries, and three human-in-the-loop validation points. A domain-specific sentence-transformer maps each attack step to candidate techniques by cosine similarity; we show empirically that this embedding stage, not the surrounding pipeline, is the dominant accuracy bottleneck. We evaluate ThreatForest across seven application domains on a sixteen-dimension rubric, scored by a panel of independent LLM raters with an adversarial verification pass and expert review. Panel-measured quality reaches 0.63-0.68 (on a 0-1 scale) for threat statements, attack trees, and mitigations, but only 0.29 for embedding-only TTP mapping -- a gap stable across all seven domains that isolates the binding constraint. A controlled single-call baseline on the same model more than doubles mapping defensibility, pinning the limitation on the embedding encoder rather than the multi-agent design. To our knowledge, ThreatForest is the first end-to-end system that turns a code repository into TTP-mapped attack trees with evidence-based mitigations across adversary frameworks, with a reusable framework for benchmarking such systems.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 11 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2026.
Builds on
11 of 38 references.
References · 11
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
- 2022Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-trainingcited by 1,253
- 2020MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language Understandingcited by 981
- 2023C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddingscited by 578
- 2024Optimizing Instructions and Demonstrations for Multi-Stage Language Model Programscited by 291
- 2023Getting pwn'd by AI: Penetration Testing with Large Language Modelscited by 83
- 2022SecureBERT: A Domain-Specific Language Model for Cybersecuritycited by 60
- 2020Automated Retrieval of ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques for Cyber Threat Reportscited by 17
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026From Requirements to Attack Trees: Grounded LLM Agents for Design-Time Security Review
- 2026Beyond Predefined Sinks: Security-Aware Dependency Analysis for LLM Agents
- 2026SecureForge: Finding and Preventing Vulnerabilities in LLM-Generated Code via Prompt Optimization
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks
- 2026Reassembling Distributed Risk: Trajectory-Conditioned Action Generation for Multi-Turn Agent Safety
- 2025Shadows in the Code: Exploring the Risks and Defenses of LLM-based Multi-Agent Software Development Systems
- 2025Bridging AI and Software Security: A Comparative Vulnerability Assessment of LLM Agent Deployment Paradigms
- 2026Structurally Close, Temporally Distant: Measuring Security Exposure in Long-Horizon LLM Agents