Can AI Lower the Barrier to Cybersecurity? A Human-Centered Mixed-Methods Study of Novice CTF Learning

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in code generation, yet they struggle with the multi-step, stateful reasoning required for offensive cybersecurity operations. Existing research often relies on static benchmarks that fail to capture the dynamic nature of real-world vulnerabilities. In this work, we introduce STRIATUM-CTF (A Search-based Test-time Reasoning Inference Agent for Tactical Utility Maximization in Cybersecurity), a modular agentic framework built upon the Model Context Protocol (MCP). By standardizing tool interfaces for system introspection, decompilation, and runtime debugging, STRIATUM-CTF enables the agent to maintain a coherent context window across extended exploit trajectories. We validate this approach not merely on synthetic datasets, but in a live competitive environment. Our system participated in a university-hosted Capture-the-Flag (CTF) competition in late 2025, where it operated autonomously to identify and exploit vulnerabilities in real-time. STRIATUM-CTF secured First Place, outperforming 21 human teams and demonstrating strong adaptability in a dynamic problem-solving setting. We analyze the agent's decision-making logs to show how MCP-based tool abstraction significantly reduces hallucination compared to naive prompting strategies. These results suggest that standardized context protocols are a critical path toward robust autonomous cyber-reasoning systems.

Gamification is especially effective in learning domains requiring active problem-solving and iterative skill-building, such as cybersecurity education. Generative AI agents offer a path to delivering such experiences adaptively at scale, but introduce well-documented risks in educational settings: inconsistent behavior, hallucinated reasoning, and misalignment with pedagogical frameworks. Grounding these systems in learning science is therefore essential. We present \model, an agentic framework for gamified cybersecurity learning that enables structured autonomy through ontology-guided validation, schema-governed behavioral control, and competency-based progression. The system is organized around a competency-based progression model that structures topics by difficulty and prerequisite relationships, reflecting evidence-based principles of scaffolded instruction. The learning loop is decomposed into four specialized agents: challenge, support, evaluation, and reward, each governed by behavioral schemas that encode operational modes and progression logic, bounding agent autonomy without eliminating generative flexibility. A cybersecurity ontology validates all generated content prior to display, enforcing domain-consistent reasoning and safety constraints. We evaluate CyberAgents through classroom deployment with undergraduate students, complemented by expert evaluations from educators and domain specialists. Results indicate improved engagement, clearer feedback interpretation, and greater learner trust in AI-generated responses when behavioral schemas and ontology validation are active. Preliminary comparisons with an unconstrained configuration further support the role of structured control in stabilizing instructional behavior. These findings offer a blueprint for designing pedagogically grounded agentic gamified learning systems.

Capture the Flag (CTF) competitions are among cybersecurity's most effective training grounds, developing practical skill across cryptography, web exploitation, and binary exploitation. Large language models (LLMs) can now solve a growing share of challenges with minimal human input, raising urgent questions about fairness, the validity of rankings, and whether participation still delivers the learning that justifies the effort. This paper reports a mixed-methods study of LLM impact on modern CTFs, combining a synthesis of published benchmarks, including a recent government evaluation, case studies of live competition across three challenge categories, structured observation of the public channels where the community debates AI use, and semi-structured interviews with experienced players and organisers. We map the current human-machine capability boundary by category, showing that easy and intermediate challenges in cryptography, web, and binary exploitation are now reliably automated while narrower sub-categories continue to resist. We find that community disagreement about whether AI should be permitted is downstream of an undeclared prior question: what a competition is for. Against this backdrop we contribute a four-component safeguard framework, combining tiered competition divisions, LLM-resistant challenge design, telemetry used investigatively, and a draft community code of conduct, together with a decision tool that ties the combination of safeguards to a competition's declared purpose. The argument reaches beyond CTFs to any setting in cybersecurity where a demonstrated result is taken as evidence of an underlying ability.