APTInvestBench: Evaluating Autonomous APT Investigation under Varying Telemetry

Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are difficult to detect and interpret due to their multi-stage and stealthy nature. While recent autonomous defense systems leverage provenance graphs and learning-based models for detection and mitigation, their outputs remain largely machine-oriented and difficult for analysts to interpret. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising interface for report generation, but often produce hallucinated or weakly grounded content. In this paper, we propose DeepFaith, an evidence-grounded framework for faithful incident reporting in multi-stage APT defense. DeepFaith transforms structured outputs from autonomous defense and explainability modules into natural-language reports that are explicitly aligned with underlying system evidence. The framework integrates a unified evidence representation, evidence-grounded prompting, faithfulness-aware generation, and post-generation verification to ensure that all generated statements are supported. Experiments in a realistic enterprise testbed demonstrate that DeepFaith improves faithfulness from 0.68 to 0.92, reduces unsupported claims from 0.32 to 0.08, and increases temporal consistency from 0.6 to 0.88, while maintaining concise reports and lower error rates than existing template-based and LLM-based solutions. These results show that evidence-grounded generation enables reliable, interpretable, and actionable reporting for security operations centers.

LLM-driven automated penetration testing agents are typically evaluated against static targets that neither detect nor respond to attacks, so their behavior under intelligent defense remains untested. The causal consistency of multi-step attack chains likewise hinges on unstable LLM reasoning, and agent decisions remain opaque to human analysts. These three shortcomings, in realism, consistency, and auditability, are usually patched in isolation. We present ZERO-APT, a turn-based attacker-defender-judge framework that addresses them within a single architecture. For realism, ZERO-APT embeds a configurable LLM Defender that consumes Sysmon telemetry and detects attacks in real time, exposing the attacker to a live opponent rather than a passive target. For consistency, three architectural mechanisms move causal consistency from unstable LLM reasoning into enforced system architecture: separation of planning from execution, multi-dimensional ReAct feedback, and a hard-constraint-filtered action library. For auditability, a dedicated Judge agent adjudicates each round, maintains global state, and emits structured post-hoc CTI reports that make every decision traceable. We evaluate a Windows Server 2022 post-exploitation prototype across five scenarios with three Defender configurations. ZERO-APT reaches 79% attack success rate (Aurora 22%, PentestGPT 39%), a Causal Consistency Score of 0.860 (Aurora 0.930, Claude Code 0.520), and end-to-end decision auditability through structured CTI reports. We release the benchmark to support evaluation of penetration agents under intelligent defense.

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.