Security misconfigurations remain a leading cause of OS-level compromise, and manually keeping systems compliant with standards like Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) is a tedious and expensive process. Existing compliance automation tools can reduce some of this burden, but they depend on static, pre-written corrective actions. In this paper, we introduce SHIELDS, a multi-agent system that uses large language models (LLMs) to approach OS hardening as an iterative, feedback-driven process. Instead of applying fixed remediations, SHIELDS continuously proposes fixes and refines them based on feedback from target system execution and validation scans. We evaluate the system across multiple virtual machine configurations using six contemporary LLMs ranging from 20B to 400B parameters, and find that SHIELDS successfully remediates up to 73% of scan findings. Our results also suggest that success in this setting depends less on model size (parameter count) than on effective tool use and information gathering, paving a practical path toward reducing the burden of security compliance in environments where compute is limited or security and privacy needs drive local model use.
Mitigating an observed adversary in an enterprise network typically takes weeks of expert work: an analyst derives a mitigation tailored to that adversary, validates it without breaking production, and verifies it disrupts the specific attack. The procedure relies on expert judgment and cannot safely be exercised against the production network. COHORT is the first end-to-end framework to automate this procedure for deployable mitigations. A role-decomposed multi-agent LLM workflow proposes candidates, implements them as real device commands, and refines them through a critique loop, all on a high-fidelity GNS3 emulator running real vendor firmware (firewall, switch, router). Each candidate is evaluated by offensive replay: re-executing the original adversary on the mitigated network for a paired comparison against the unmitigated baseline, rather than the reward-signal or expert-judgment proxies used in prior simulation, hybrid, and configuration-generation work. Two further checks complement replay: a connectivity-regression check (LAN ping and internet HTTP probe) rejects mitigations that disrupt legitimate LAN or internet connectivity, and a cumulative evaluation stacks approved mitigations onto a persistent state to surface compound effects. Across three topologies and four attack scenarios (ransomware, lateral movement, DNS exfiltration, data theft), 46.7% of generated mitigations both disrupt the attack and preserve connectivity under replay, 4.4 times the rate of a single-agent baseline using the same model and tool access. A demo video walking through the framework is available with our released artifacts.
Assessing the security posture of modern computing systems typically requires the use of multiple specialized tools. These tools focus on different aspects such as configuration compliance, file integrity, and vulnerability exposure, and their outputs are often difficult to interpret collectively. This paper introduces the Unified Compliance Aggregator (UCA), a framework that integrates several open-source security tools into a single composite score representing overall system security. The proposed framework combines outputs from Lynis, OpenSCAP (STIG and CIS profiles), AIDE, Tripwire, and Nmap NSE. A normalization process converts heterogeneous outputs into a consistent 0 to 100 scale, followed by weighted aggregation. We also introduce a logarithmic scoring model for file integrity measurements to address limitations observed in prior linear approaches. Experiments were conducted on Ubuntu 22.04 across different hardening levels and environments. Results show consistent improvement in composite scores as systems are hardened, while also revealing contrasting behavior between compliance and file integrity tools. Two case studies, a basic web server and a DVWA-based system illustrate how the framework can be applied in practical scenarios.
This paper explores the value of agentic AI tools for cybersecurity purposes. We evaluate the efficacy of a general-purpose GenAI Large Language Model- (GenAI-) based agent when powered by three different Ollama-hosted general-purpose open source models. We assess each agent's performance using precision, recall, false positive count, and a calculated composite score based upon the interplay of the captured metrics, against the baseline performance of an existing, vetted Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool, Bandit. Our findings refute the notion that a modern open-source GenAI LLM-based agent is currently suitable for the specialized task of SAST scanning under realistic conditions.