Humans vs. Machines: A Comparison With AI Agents in Software Reverse Engineering

AI agents are rapidly improving in cybersecurity when source code is available, yet much of the software most consequential to security, including malware, firmware, and proprietary applications, exists only as binaries. Analyzing such software requires reverse engineering (RE): recovering program semantics before analysis can proceed. Evaluating agentic RE poses a fundamental challenge: realistic benchmark instances must (1) be absent from LLMs' training data to prevent shortcuts by memorization, and (2) reflect the scale and anti-analysis protections of real-world binaries. We introduce SRE-Bench, the first realistic, contamination-free RE benchmark. Built from scratch by RE experts with over 5,000 expert hours, SRE-Bench comprises 19 private, real-world-scale programs averaging 16.9K lines of code. We further developed 44 in-house anti-analysis mechanisms, yielding 262 binary instances and 1,572 deterministically graded tasks. We evaluated 13 agentic settings across 11 models: eight in public-facing settings and five in internal unconstrained settings with cyber safeguards disabled and no budget cap. Realistic RE remains challenging for frontier agents: GPT-5.6-Sol and Claude-Fable-5.1, despite strong source-code security capabilities, fully solve only 31.5% and 26.9% of graded instances, suggesting that success in source-code security does not translate into effective binary analysis. Without a budget cap and safety guard, GPT-6-Astra achieves a near-perfect pass@4 score, yet reliably identifying the correct candidate remains difficult. Agents are largely insensitive to compiler optimization and static linking, and ablations confirm that both contamination control and realistic scale are essential to understanding agents' RE capability. These findings highlight RE as a distinct frontier for agentic cybersecurity and establish SRE-Bench as a rigorous testbed for measuring progress.

Benchmarks for coding agents increasingly measure source-level software repair, and cybersecurity benchmarks increasingly measure broad capture-the-flag performance. Classical binary reverse engineering remains less precisely specified: given only an executable, can an agent recover validation logic and produce an input, serial, artifact, or key generator accepted by the program? We introduce CrackMeBench, a benchmark for evaluating language-model agents on educational CrackMe-style reverse-engineering tasks. CrackMeBench focuses on deterministic binary validation problems with executable oracles, symbol-poor binaries, explicit local tool access, and externally scored submissions rather than free-form explanations. The v0 benchmark combines eight public calibration CrackMes with twelve generated main-score tasks built from seeded C, Rust, and Go templates, and agents run through an equal shell interface in a no-network Linux Docker sandbox with standard reverse-engineering tools. In a three-model evaluation with a five-minute budget and three scored submissions per task, pass@3 on the generated split is 11/12 tasks (92%) for GPT-5.5, 7/12 (58%) for Claude Opus 4.7, and 5/12 (42%) for Kimi K2. The harder generated half separates the models more sharply, with pass@3 of 5/6, 2/6, and 1/6, respectively; on the eight-task public calibration split, pass@3 is 3/8, 2/8, and 1/8. CrackMeBench records pass@1 and pass@3, scored submissions, wall-clock time, command traces, tool categories, provider-reported token usage, estimated cost, and qualitative failure labels, providing a reproducible testbed for measuring progress from source-code reasoning toward autonomous binary analysis while restricting scope to educational, purpose-built programs.

Automatic decompilers produce functionally correct but often unreadable C code. This paper addresses one stage of the reverse engineering workflow: improving the readability of decompiled code using LLM agents guided by quantitative metrics. We present a three-phase research evolution. Phase 1 (tool-driven steering via Ghidra MCP) suffered from incomplete coverage and inconsistent improvements due to lack of quantitative guidance. Phase 2 (structural similarity validation alone) revealed that agents optimize for metrics in unintended ways, producing structurally equivalent but less readable code. Our contribution is the Quantitative Readability Score (QRS) framework, a composite metric combining a structural similarity gate with three independent readability sub-metrics (Lexical Surprisal, Structural Simplicity, and Idiomatic Quality). We demonstrate that QRS-guided refinement enables LLM agents to make targeted readability improvements without sacrificing correctness. We provide a discussion of the broader reverse engineering workflow (binary lifting, decompilation cleanup, and achieving functional equivalence) as context, however, it remains out of scope.