Agentic security systems increasingly audit live targets with tool-using LLMs, but prior systems fix a single coordination topology, leaving unclear when additional agents help and when they only add cost. We treat topology choice as an empirical systems question. We introduce a controlled benchmark of 20 interactive targets (10 web/API and 10 binary), each exposing one endpoint-reachable ground-truth vulnerability, evaluated in whitebox and blackbox modes. The core study executes 600 runs over five architecture families, three model families, and both access modes, with a separate 60-run long-context pilot reported only in the appendix. On the completed core benchmark, detection-any reaches 58.0% and validated detection reaches 49.8%. MAS-Indep attains the highest validated detection rate (64.2%), while SAS is the strongest efficiency baseline at $0.058 per validated finding. Whitebox materially outperforms blackbox (67.0% vs. 32.7% validated detection), and web materially outperforms binary (74.3% vs. 25.3%). Bootstrap confidence intervals and paired target-level deltas show that the dominant effects are observability and domain, while some leading whitebox topologies remain statistically close. The main result is a non-monotonic cost-quality frontier: broader coordination can improve coverage, but it does not dominate once latency, token cost, and exploit-validation difficulty are taken into account.
The use of agentic systems to perform offensive security operations has moved from a theoretical possibility to a commoditized capability. However, while the community has focused on creating more and more capable agents, less attention has been allocated to assessing the security of those systems. In this work, we present the first in-depth security analysis of the most widely used agentic systems for offensive security operations. We show that most of these tools share common design flaws that enable an active adversary to exfiltrate API keys, establish persistent footholds, and fully compromise the operator's machine, even when the agent operates inside a sandboxed container. To support our analysis, we introduce a full cyber kill chain for such agentic systems, capturing the progression from initial LLM manipulation to lateral movement, persistence, guardrail bypass, and sandbox escape. Building on our security analysis, we derive a robust architecture for agentic offensive-security tools and propose actionable, broadly applicable design principles that mitigate the disclosed attack paths at the architectural level.
Dario Pasquini, Michal Bazyli, Taras Fedynyshyn +1
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.
We introduce the Cyber Defense Benchmark, a benchmark for measuring how well large language model (LLM) agents perform the core SOC analyst task of threat hunting: given a database of raw Windows event logs with no guided questions or hints, identify the exact timestamps of malicious events. The benchmark wraps 106 real attack procedures from the OTRF Security-Datasets corpus - spanning 86 MITRE ATT&CK sub-techniques across 12 tactics - into a Gymnasium reinforcement-learning environment. Each episode presents the agent with an in-memory SQLite database of 75,000-135,000 log records produced by a deterministic campaign simulator that time-shifts and entity-obfuscates the raw recordings. The agent must iteratively submit SQL queries to discover malicious event timestamps and explicitly flag them, scored CTF-style against Sigma-rule-derived ground truth. Evaluating five frontier models - Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and Gemini 3 Flash - on 26 campaigns covering 105 of 106 procedures, we find that all models fail dramatically: the best model (Claude Opus 4.6) submits correct flags for only 3.8% of malicious events on average, and no run across any model ever finds all flags. We define a passing score as >= 50% recall on every ATT&CK tactic - the minimum bar for unsupervised SOC deployment. No model passes: the leader clears this bar on 5 of 13 tactics and the remaining four on zero. These results suggest that current LLMs are poorly suited for open-ended, evidence-driven threat hunting despite strong performance on curated Q&A security benchmarks.