How Do LLM Agents Actually Get the Flag? Trace-Level Provenance for Agentic Offensive Security Evaluation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Capture-the-Flag (CTF) benchmarks are widely used to assess the offensive security capabilities of autonomous language-model agents. Evaluations rely on shallow binary judgments or aggregate scores, overlooking the agent's trajectory to the flag. Consequently actual exploitation is conflated with direct flag exposure, memorized recall, external lookup, guessing, and unsupported claims, potentially overstating the agent's cybersecurity capability. We introduce CTF-ABACUS, a trace-based agent auditing framework that reconstructs each run as an evidence-grounded solve profile. By decomposing agent actions into penetration-testing phases and categorical techniques, it identifies where exploitation occurs, where the flag first appears, and whether the recovered flag is supported by demonstrated behavior. Aggregating solve profiles across agents yields challenge signatures that reveal whether success was achieved via the intended exploit or via shortcut pathways. We apply CTF-ABACUS to 1,435 CTF attempts by six frontier and open-source models on 240 challenges, yielding 2,870 solve profiles under two judge lenses. Trace-verified exploits account for only 62-87% of recovered flags across benchmarks, while shortcut recoveries follow substantially shallower trajectories. These findings shift CTF evaluation from counting recovered flags to verifying demonstrated exploitation and provide a basis for designing benchmarks that better isolate the offensive capabilities.
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 6 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.
Builds on
6 of 13 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2026CyBiasBench: Benchmarking Bias in LLM Agents for Cyber-Attack Scenarios8 May
- 2025D-CIPHER: Dynamic Collaborative Intelligent Multi-Agent System with Planner and Heterogeneous Executors for Offensive Security15 Feb
- 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Hack Websites6 Feb
Other references · 3
- 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 229
- 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
- 2025Benchmarking Practices in LLM-driven Offensive Security: Testbeds, Metrics, and Experiment Designcited by 13
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026CTFExplorer: Evaluating LLM Offensive Agents Through Multi-Target Web CTF Benchmarking
- 2024EnIGMA: Interactive Tools Substantially Assist LM Agents in Finding Security Vulnerabilities
- 2025Towards Effective Offensive Security LLM Agents: Hyperparameter Tuning, LLM as a Judge, and a Lightweight CTF Benchmark
- 2026Do Agents Dream of Root Shells? Partial-Credit Evaluation of LLM Agents in Capture the Flag Challenges
- 2026CTFusion: A CTF-based Benchmark for LLM Agent Evaluation
- 2026Capture the Flags: Family-Based Evaluation of Agentic LLMs via Semantics-Preserving Transformations
- 2026From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents
- 2026Autonomous LLM Agents & CTFs: A Second Look