mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

From Capability to Assurance in Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: A Framework and Reference Implementation

arXiv 2609.22664 ↗First posted 19 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Research on large language model agents for penetration testing is evaluated almost entirely by capability: whether the agent captures a flag or reproduces a proof of concept. That metric suits a benchmark but is silent on the properties that decide whether an autonomous agent can be used in an authorized engagement: whether a reported finding is true, whether the agent stayed inside its authorized scope, and whether an operator can audit what it did. We call these assurance properties and argue that they belong to the harness, the runtime wrapping the model, and can be enforced in code. This paper makes three contributions. First, we define a framework of five assurance properties (evidence grounding, non destructive claim reduction, computed severity, enforced authorization, and tamper evident accountability), each with a formal model and an explicit acceptance test, connected to prior work in capability based security, tamper evident logging, and software provenance. Second, we position representative systems (PentestGPT, the Cochise reference harness, MAPTA, and the trajectory judge PentestJudge) within the framework using published coding criteria, and identify a consistent assurance gap. Third, we study one open source implementation, NeuroSploit, pinned to an exact commit, reporting its architecture, its complexity cost, and a content addressed artifact bundle from a run against a public deliberately vulnerable target. We execute the deterministic authorization and audit acceptance tests directly and find and report a real enforcement gap, which we reflect by scoring both properties as partial. We therefore claim an initial existence argument that the properties are realizable together, not a comparative performance result, and we specify the multi target, ablation, and adversarial evaluation protocol required to turn the framework obligations into measurements.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 16 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Sep 2026.

Builds on

16 of 37 references.

Closest ancestors · 9

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026ExploitGym: Can AI Agents Turn Security Vulnerabilities into Real Attacks?11 May
  2. 2025Penetration Testing of Agentic AI: A Comparative Security Analysis Across Models and Frameworks16 Dec
  3. 2025Automated Penetration Testing with LLM Agents and Classical Planning11 Dec
  4. 2025Multi-Agent Penetration Testing AI for the Web28 Aug
  5. 2025MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols17 Aug
  6. 2025PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirements4 Aug
  7. 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilities2 Jun
  8. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilities11 Apr
  9. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Hack Websites6 Feb

Other references · 7

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  2. 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 810
  3. 2022RARR: Researching and Revising What Language Models Say, Using Language Modelscited by 287
  4. 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 164
  5. 2025PentestEval: Benchmarking LLM-based Penetration Testing with Modular and Stage-Level Designcited by 7
  6. 2025Pentest-R1: Towards Autonomous Penetration Testing Reasoning Optimized via Two-Stage Reinforcement Learningcited by 5
  7. 2026Cochise: A Reference Harness for Autonomous Penetration Testingcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Baselines Before Architecture: Evaluating Coding Agents for Autonomous Penetration Testing
  2. 2026Big Enough to Break Out: Tracking the Rising Capability of LLM Penetration-Testing Agents
  3. 2025xOffense: An Autonomous Multi-Agent Framework for Penetration Testing with Domain-Adapted Large Language Models
  4. 2024HackSynth: LLM Agent and Evaluation Framework for Autonomous Penetration Testing
  5. 2026Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectives
  6. 2025From Capabilities to Performance: Evaluating Key Functional Properties of LLM Architectures in Penetration Testing
  7. 2026Measuring Safety Alignment Effects in Autonomous Security Agents
  8. 2026ClawSentry: A Progressive Multi-Tier Security Monitor for Safeguarding Autonomous LLM Agents