Hackers or Hallucinators? A Comprehensive Analysis of LLM-Based Automated Penetration Testing
Organizations: School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Sichuan University, China · Institute for Network Sciences and Cyberspace, Tsinghua University, China · National University of Singapore, Singapore · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ·
Abstract
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has created new opportunities for Automated Penetration Testing (AutoPT), spawning numerous frameworks aimed at achieving end-to-end autonomous attacks. However, despite the proliferation of related studies, existing research generally lacks systematic architectural analysis and large-scale empirical comparisons under a unified benchmark. Therefore, this paper presents the first Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) focusing on the architectural design and comprehensive empirical evaluation of current LLM-based AutoPT frameworks. At systematization level, we comprehensively review existing framework designs across six dimensions: agent architecture, agent plan, agent memory, agent execution, external knowledge, and benchmarks. At empirical level, we conduct large-scale experiments on 13 representative open-source AutoPT frameworks and 2 baseline frameworks utilizing a unified benchmark. The experiments consumed over 10 billion tokens in total and generated more than 1,500 execution logs, which were manually reviewed and analyzed over four months by a panel of more than 15 researchers with expertise in cybersecurity. By investigating the latest progress in this rapidly developing field, we provide researchers with a structured taxonomy to understand existing LLM-based AutoPT frameworks and a large-scale empirical benchmark, along with promising directions for future research.
Figures & tables
| Framework | Planning | Execution | Summarization |
| ARACNE Nieponice et al. (2025) | Planner | Interpreter | Summarizer |
| AutoAttacker Xu et al. (2024) | Planner | Navigator | Summarizer |
| AutoPentest Henke (2025) | Planner | Specialised Workers | |
| CHECKMATE Wang et al. (2025a) | Planner | Executor | Perceptor |
| BreachSeek Alshehri et al. (2024) | Supervisor | Specialized agents | Recorder |
| cochise Happe and Cito (2025a) | Planner | Executor | Executor |
| Framework | Reconnaissance | Retrieval | Agent orchestration | Reflect |
| ARACNE Nieponice et al. (2025) | Planner | |||
| AutoAttacker Xu et al. (2024) | Planner | |||
| AutoPentest Henke (2025) | Specialised Workers | Specialized Workers | Supervisor | Planner |
| CHECKMATE Wang et al. (2025a) | Planner | |||
| BreachSeek Alshehri et al. (2024) | Specialized Agents | Supervisor | Evaluator | |
| cochise Happe and Cito (2025a) | Planner |
| Model | Payload | Write ups | SSK | Search |
| VulnBot Kong et al. (2025b) | HackTricks | Hacking Articles | ||
| xOffense Luong et al. (2025) | HackTricks | Hacking Articles | ||
| hackingBuddyGPT Happe et al. (2023) | HackTricks | |||
| RapidPen Cowper (2024) | HackTricks | |||
| AI-Pentest-Benchmark Isozaki et al. (2025) | HackTricks | |||
| CYBER-ZERO Zhuo et al. (2026) | CTF write-ups |
| Name | Type | Data Source | Scale |
| A. CTF-Based Skill Assessment Benchmarks | |||
| InterCode-CTF Yang et al. (2023a) | CTF | picoCTF | 100 CTF Tasks |
| NYU CTF Bench Shao et al. (2024b) | CTF | CSAW CTF | 6 Scenarios (200 CTF Tasks) |
| CYBENCH Zhang et al. (2024a) | CTF | 4 CTF Competitions | 100 CTF Tasks |
| HackSynth Muzsai et al. (2024) | CTF | PicoCTF, OverTheWire | 200 CTF Tasks |
| XBOW XBOW Engineering (2025) | CTF | – | 104 CTF Tasks |
| No. | Vulnerabilities | Description |
| Easy | ||
| 005 | IDOR, JWT, Default Credentials | IDOR, JWT misconfiguration, and default credentials enable privilege escalation |
| 020 | SSRF | SSRF enables unauthorized access to internal services |
| 026 | CVE, Path Traversal, LFI | Path traversal leads to local file inclusion and potential code execution |
| 038 | GraphQL, SQLi | SQL injection is present in a GraphQL endpoint |
| 039 | SQLi, Privilege Escalation | SQL injection enables authentication bypass and privilege escalation |
| Framework | Easy | Medium | ||
| Avg Time (s) | Success | Avg Time (s) | Success | |
| CTFSOLVER | 141 | 18 | 612 | 14 |
| Cruiser | 237 | 9 | 295 | 8 |
| CyberStrike | 286 | 14 | 903 | 9 |
| baseline-kimi | 321 | 16 | 1042 | 13 |
| CHYing | 390 | 11 | 551 | 6 |
| Difficulty | Metric | Backbone LLM | ||||
| Opus-4.6 | Gemini-pro-3.1 | DS-v3.2 | DS-R-V3.2 | GPT-5.2 | ||
| CTFSOLVER | ||||||
| Easy | Success Count | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 |
| Calls | 35 | 19.72 | 61.22 | 72.39 | 52.39 | |
| Tokens | 247437.56 | 153912.89 | 707196.22 | 498242.17 | 703328.17 | |
| Time (s) | 171 | 270 | 324 | 837 | 168 | |
| Framework | Challenges | Count |
| CHYing | 014, 022, 028, 039, 041, 042, 060, 078, 093 | 009 |
| H-Pentest | 004, 022, 028, 029, 041, 093 | 006 |
| SickHackShark | 018, 022, 077, 093 | 004 |
| Tinyctfer | 026, 028, 029, 078, 088 | 005 |
| CyberStrike | 022, 028, 029 | 003 |
| sub-agent | 018 | 001 |
Appendix figures & tables23 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Automated Penetration Testing
Automated penetration testing uses software agents to find, verify, and assess exploitable weaknesses in systems.
See all 48 papers