Recent autonomous penetration testing papers report high benchmark scores while adding multi-component security harnesses around frontier LLMs. Because these systems often change both architecture and backbone model, it is difficult to tell how much performance comes from the harness rather than from the underlying model. This paper presents a controlled study on the 104-task XBOW benchmark using default coding CLI agents as plain-agent baselines. We first run Codex, OpenCode, and Pi with the same GPT-5 model, budget, target interface, and scoring rule. This phase identifies the strongest same-model baseline and tests whether security-specific prompt variants improve its observed score. We then compare the default Codex scaffold with published MAPTA and PentestGPT V2 results under the closest available model matches. Finally, we repeat the plain-agent experiment with GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.5 to measure model scaling inside the same scaffold. The results show a mixed but practical picture. Specialised harnesses can add measurable benchmark lift and may improve cost efficiency, but plain coding agents already solve a large share of the benchmark; repeated plain-agent runs can match or exceed some published architecture scores in union coverage, and newer models substantially improve the same scaffold. Future evaluations should report model-matched plain-agent baselines before attributing benchmark gains to architecture design alone.
Traditional pentesting uses reconnaissance at each step to uncover unseen weaknesses, build stronger attacks, and advance the objective; we argue that AI agents require the same treatment. We formalize agent reconnaissance by modeling the process and identifying the knowledge assets it seeks to extract: what they are, how they are used, and which agent weaknesses they exploit to give adversaries leverage in indirect prompt injection attacks. We instantiate these insights in Know Your Agent (KYA), a framework that automates black-box, reconnaissance-driven pentesting by probing agents, building target profiles, and using those profiles to craft stronger attacks. We evaluate KYA on agent-security benchmarks and a real-world coding agent, and release KYA, its benchmarks, and baseline implementations for reproducibility.
Recent work on LLM-driven autonomous penetration testing reports promising results, but existing systems often combine many architectural, prompting, and tool-integration choices, making it difficult to tell what is gained over a simple agent scaffold. We present cochise, a 597 LOC Python reference harness for autonomous penetration-testing experiments. Cochise connects an LLM-driven agent to a Linux execution host over SSH and supports controlled target environments reachable from that jump host. The prototype implements a separated Planner--Executor architecture in which long-term state is maintained outside the LLM context, while a ReAct-style executor issues commands over SSH and self-corrects based on command outputs. The scenario prompt can be adapted to different target environments. To demonstrate the efficacy of our minimal harness, we evaluate it against a live third-party testbed called Game of Active Directory (GOAD). Alongside the harness, we release replay and analysis tools: (i) cochise-replay for offline visualization of captured runs, (ii) cochise-analyze-alogs and cochise-analyze-graphs for cost, token, duration, and compromise analysis, and (iii) a corpus of JSON trajectory logs from GOAD runs, allowing researchers to study agent behavior without provisioning the 48--64 GB RAM / 190 GB storage testbed themselves. Cochise is intended not as a state-of-the-art pen-testing agent, but as reusable experimental infrastructure for comparing models, agent architectures, and penetration-testing traces.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for automated penetration testing, yet existing end-to-end black-box evaluations are highly susceptible to error cascading: failures in early reconnaissance can mask an agent's actual ability to exploit vulnerabilities. To more accurately characterize these capabilities, we propose a two-stage decoupled evaluation framework that separates exploit execution from reconnaissance. Using ground-truth injection and knowledge-driven ablation across 70 high-fidelity web vulnerability testbeds, our framework isolates exploitation performance from reconnaissance noise. We empirically evaluate five open-source penetration-testing agents, covering multiagent, monolithic, and graph-driven architectures, on a strictly aligned subset of 50 representative vulnerabilities. The results reveal a substantial capability gap. With accurate vulnerability context, agents achieve a functional success rate of up to 90.0%, whereas autonomous reconnaissance, measured by targeted vulnerability recall, plateaus at approximately 50.0%, primarily due to failures in parsing unstructured telemetry. Cross-architectural analysis further reveals distinct capability niches: multi-agent isolation is more effective for long-sequence interactions such as de-serialization, while monolithic and graph-driven designs perform better on short-chain injections and cross-session access-control vulnerabilities, respectively. This decoupled evaluation work provides a fine-grained benchmarking protocol and an empirical basis for designing next-generation automated offensive security agents.