Towards Reliable Local Security Agents: Verifiable Post-Training for Linux Privilege Escalation
Authors: Philipp Normann, Andreas Happe, Jürgen Cito, Daniel Arp
Organizations: TU Wien, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
LLM agents are becoming increasingly important in the security domain, but leading systems are often closed-source, cloud-based, hard to reproduce or use with sensitive code. This creates a need for small, local models that can perform security tasks under strict resource constraints, though effective methods for developing them remain unexplored. In this paper, we address this gap by proposing a two-stage post-training recipe that turns a small local language model into a security agent. To this end, we focus on Linux privilege escalation as a representative setting to systematically study the training of local models, as the task is both automatically verifiable and requires multi-step interactive reasoning. Using an experimental setup that mitigates data leakage, we post-train a small 4B model in two stages: supervised fine-tuning on traces from procedural privilege-escalation environments, followed by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. On a held-out benchmark of 12 Linux privilege-escalation scenarios, supervised fine-tuning doubles the baseline success rate under a tight budget of 20 interaction rounds, and subsequent reinforcement learning training improves our model, PrivEsc-LLM 4B, to 93.3% success, behind only Claude Opus 4.7 at this budget. At the same time, the expected inference cost per successful escalation decreases by more than 80x. Our findings not only show that small local models can be adapted to complex security tasks, but also document the challenges involved, offering guidance for transferring this recipe to other settings.
Recent research has demonstrated the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) for autonomous penetration testing, particularly when using cloud-based restricted-weight models. However, reliance on such models introduces security, privacy, and sovereignty concerns, motivating the use of locally hosted open-weight alternatives. Prior work shows that small open-weight models perform poorly on automated Linux privilege escalation, limiting their practical applicability. In this paper, we present a systematic empirical study of whether targeted system-level and prompting interventions can bridge this performance gap. We analyze failure modes of open-weight models in autonomous privilege escalation, map them to established enhancement techniques, and evaluate five concrete interventions (chain-of-thought prompting, retrieval-augmented generation, structured prompts, history compression, and reflective analysis) implemented as extensions to hackingBuddyGPT. Our results show that open-weight models can match or outperform cloud-based baselines such as GPT-4o. With our treatments enabled, Llama3.1 70B exploits 83% of tested vulnerabilities, while smaller models including Llama3.1 8B and Qwen2.5 7B achieve 67% when using guidance. A full-factorial ablation study over all treatment combinations reveals that reflection-based treatments contribute most, while also identifying vulnerability discovery as a remaining bottleneck for local models.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed to automate offensive security tasks, with recent studies reporting near human-level success rates in Capture-the-Flag (CTF) challenges. We here revisit these results, providing a second look at these claims. We engineer different agent architectures of increasing complexity and modularity on 30 web-based CTFs challenges spanning 14 vulnerability classes. We instantiate these agents with multiple LLM backbones, and compare them with claude-code, a general-purpose agent that automatically determines its internal architecture. Our evaluation yields three main findings. First, claude-code achieves performance comparable to the engineered architectures (19/30 solved tasks), suggesting that general-purpose agents are strong baselines for offensive security tasks. Second, both our architectures and claude-code struggle in the same challenge categories, revealing persistent barriers that keep current agents below human-level capability. Third, by leveraging our manually designed architectures we can systematically measure the impact of additional components, finding that structured orchestration of specialized roles outperforms monolithic designs, improving run-to-run consistency, and reducing execution costs.
Large language model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to security risks, such as prompt injection attacks from untrusted context that manipulate downstream reasoning and tool use. Existing secure-by-design approaches mitigate this risk by separating untrusted observations from privileged execution and careful control of information flow, but often degrade utility and require extensive task-specific engineering. We thus propose Twin Agent, a general privilege separation design pattern inspired by residual coding in the agent context. Twin Agent consists of two nearly symmetric agents: an Explore Agent that inspects untrusted information and a Safe Agent that executes privileged actions. The Explore Agent is conditioned on the Safe Agent's current context and communicates only compact hints to the Safe Agent about the next action to take. This design reduces the information needed to preserve task utility and thus achieves a better security--utility tradeoff, which we empirically verify by measuring how utility and attack success change as the length of hints varies. We evaluate Twin Agent on long-horizon software engineering tasks with SWE-bench Lite and on heterogeneous multi-tool interaction tasks with AgentDojo and DecodingTrust-Agent. Across both benchmarks, Twin Agent preserves high task utility while preventing prompt injection attacks, outperforming both undefended agents and privilege separation baselines.