We test the performance of agents for automated network intrusion response in a cyber range intended for human operator training. The range implements an emulated networking environment with a variable network topology, red-team emulation and simulated user agents. The goal of the defensive agents is to prevent hosts in the network from being accessed by the red-team agent, while minimizing the availability costs induced from defensive measures. Alerts are generated using a SIEM platform and mapped to a data modeling language used by the agents. We test a combination of heuristic agents and policies learned using reinforcement learning. The learned policies are optimized to minimize the combined cost using a cyber attack simulator modeling the network. We found that the reinforcement learning agents were overall more efficient at defending the system than the heuristic policy, and that the performance depends highly on the policy of the adversary in combination with the simulated users.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : High-level rendering of the three steps we follow for sim-to-real development of automated cyber defense agents.
Fig. 2 : Conceptual flow chart over the sim-to-real defender agent development and evaluation process described in this work. First, a data model describing a network is created with a given modeling language and collected inventory data. The model is then used with a simulator, which may use simulated attackers, to optimize a defending agent policy. Finally, the agent is evaluated with the target network, containing both adversarial and neutral agents. A translation interface converts and classifies events from the network into the data model used by the defending agent, and translates the agent’s actions back to commands to be executed on network hosts.
Fig. 3 : Topology of the AIR-DELIVERY-SYSTEM24 (ADS-24) computer network represented as a graph. Windows hosts are denoted with green rectangles, and Linux host with orange ovals.
Fig. 4 : mal instance model based on Osquery data from the hosts “ntp” and “payroll” , with asset types and relations defined in CadsLang.
Fig. 5 : Example of an observation database for the defender agent, rendered as a table, containing facts about the host “files” . Predicates for attack steps are colored red, defense steps blue, asset relations green and CIA values yellow.
Fig. 6 : Violin plots of return distributions from running defender agents in ADS-24 against Lore, with and without user agents present. Higher returns indicate desired behavior. Median value indicated as dashed line.
Agent Type
Attacker Policy
Users Present
Return
Attack Cost
Defense Cost
NoOp
Exploratory
False
-11020 ± 826
-11020 ± 826
0 ± 0
Heuristic
Exploratory
False
-11586 ± 1737
-1344 ± 360
-10242 ± 1520
Vejde
Exploratory
False
-12422 ± 955
-918 ± 227
-11503 ± 1037
Vejde w/ Noise
Exploratory
False
-7779 ± 5723
-3816 ± 3218
-3963 ± 2615
NoOp
Guided
False
-2904 ± 133
-2904 ± 133
0 ± 0
Heuristic
Guided
False
-4721 ± 514
-931 ± 125
-3790 ± 417
TABLE I : Mean returns, attack costs and defense costs with standard deviation for defender agents when evaluated in ADS-24. Note that the return is the sum of the attack and defense costs.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
RL
Value
Maximum Episode Length
300
Minimum Episode Length
120
Epochs per Batch
8
Number of Parallel Environments
16
Discount Factor
0.99
GAE λ
0.95
Appendix
TABLE II : Hyperparameters used for training Vejde agents.
Host Class
Availability
Integrity
Confidentiality
Time Server / NTP
4
5
1
Log Server
5
5
4
File Server
4
2
2
Domain Controller
5
5
2
Name Server
5
5
2
Web Server
2
4
1
Appendix
TABLE III : Confidentiality, integrity and availability priorities for different assets in the network.
Hostname
Type
timereporter
Time Server / NTP
ntp
Time Server / NTP
files
File Server
dc
Domain Controller
weborder
Web Server
mail
Mail Server
Appendix
TABLE IV : Classes of host that can appear in the network.
Fig. 7 : Scatter plots of returns over time after running defender agents in ADS-24 against Lore, with and without user agents present. Higher returns are better.
Fig. 8 : Agent returns for different prioritizations of attack and defense cost, calculated as Rα=(1−α)Ra+αRd , with α=0.5 representing the current balance.
Fig. 9 : Graph depiction of the mal CadsLang language. Nodes represent attack steps, with directed edges showing possible subsequent steps.
Fig. 10 : Graphs showing estimated probability of Lore compromising a host when not interrupted with the two strategies, “Guided” and “Exploratory” . Probabilities < 1% are not drawn.
Fig. 11 : Bipartite graph representation of an initial MAL Simulator state, converted to the Vejde representation format.
Fig. 12 : Bipartite graph representation of an initial observed CRATE state.
Training reinforcement-learning agents for cyber defense requires an environment that reflects the operational setting: noisy, partial observations, several defenders coordinating across a network, and an adaptive adversary realized through self-play. We present NetForge RL, a multi-agent environment for this setting on procedurally generated enterprise and operational-technology (OT) networks. A red agent compromises hosts with partial observability; three zone-split blue agents defend from synthetic SIEM telemetry, Windows/Sysmon event logs encoded into dense embeddings rather than a ground-truth state vector. The environment follows the PettingZoo parallel API with fixed-shape observations and MITRE ATT&CK-mapped actions, ships five scenarios with named difficulty presets and a held-out evaluation split, and replays deterministically under a seed. A JAX backend vectorizes a reduced transition core, reaching 2.5 x 10^5 environment-steps/s at batch 4096 on CPU, as a fast surrogate for training-loop iteration. Alongside the environment we provide reference baselines (scripted, a JAX IPPO trainer, and a self-play tournament), six diagnostic probes that each measure one defensive skill, and an evaluation runner reporting 95% confidence intervals. We describe the reproducibility engineering behind the environment and include a responsible-use statement.
With sophisticated cyber-attacks becoming increasingly prevalent, modern networks require intelligent autonomous cyber-defense agents trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL). These agents employ neurosymbolic approaches such as behavior trees with learning-enabled components (LECs) to learn, reason, adapt, and implement security rules while maintaining critical operations. However, these autonomous networks are partially observable systems, i.e., the cyber-attacker's (red agent's) actions are not observable, making it difficult for the defender to predict red actions, learn red policies, or assess the attacker's intrusion levels. To address this, we propose a Policy Learning Technique using imitation learning to learn policies for partially observable RL agents with discrete states and discrete actions. We apply this technique in an autonomous cyber environment to predict red agent's actions from network observations and defender actions. Integrated with a neurosymbolic cyber-defense agent, our method effectively handles different red policies and achieves high prediction accuracy across diverse simulated scenarios.
Ankita Samaddar, Sandeep Neema, Daniel Balasubramanian +1
Departmaent of Computer Science Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN
We have developed the MAL Simulator, a cyber operation simulator based on the Meta Attack Language (MAL). The MAL Simulator is intended for decision-driven cyber attack and defense simulations, for system analysis and the development of automated agents. By building the simulator around an attack modeling language, it can be adapted to different target domains without modifying the source code. We used the simulator for two case studies where we trained two types of agents for automated cyber operations: a defensive agent and an offensive agent. To ground the experiments, we base the models in data collected from an emulated network implemented in the cyber range CRATE. We found that the trained attacker policy could reach the designated targets more efficiently than the compared search methods, and that the trained defender agent induced lower costs than a naive heuristic agent under noisy alert conditions. When testing the RL attacker against the RL defender, we found that the performance of the defenders dropped significantly. This emphasizes the importance of cyber attack simulators to facilitate training both offensive and defensive agents. The MAL Simulator and associated tooling is publicly available and provides common interfaces for compatibility with existing machine learning frameworks.