ProtoArena: Can AI Agents Discover and Exploit Real-World Cross-Component Protocol Vulnerabilities?
Organizations: Tsinghua University · Alibaba Group · Nankai University · Quancheng Lab
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used for vulnerability analysis, yet existing benchmarks provide limited coverage of exploitation that depends on interactions among network protocol components. Such vulnerabilities arise from inconsistencies in message interpretation, timing, state, or trust assumptions across participants. We introduce ProtoArena, a black-box, multi-component, dynamic benchmark with 80 cross-component vulnerability-exploitation environments spanning 11 protocol and application domains and 7 attack categories. Tasks are primarily informed by published protocol-attack mechanisms. Agents interact with running systems through scoped interfaces to achieve security-effect objectives without target source code. Three information levels assess guided reproduction, exploitation with mechanism and topology context, and effect-directed black-box exploration. A hybrid verifier combines rule-based checks with LLM review of independently collected traffic and logs. We evaluate five LLMs. Claude Opus 4.8 achieves the highest observed success rates: 48.8% under L1 guidance and 12.5% under effect-directed black-box L3. In a separate DNSBomb optimization experiment, it achieves a peak downstream-response to average query-input byte-rate ratio exceeding 171,000 times. The results show that agents can achieve verifiable exploitation effects in some cross-component environments, but success with limited black-box information remains low and varies across domains and attack categories. All experiments use controlled, explicitly authorized targets; they do not test production systems or disclose previously unknown vulnerabilities.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Scope | Black-box | Mechanism withheld | Cross-comp. | Runtime-state | Working exploit | Anti-contam. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CyberSecEval ( 2023 ) | Secure code / safety | ||||||
| NYU CTF ( 2024 ) | CTF | ||||||
| Cybench ( 2025 ) | CTF | ||||||
| CyberGym ( 2026b ) | PoC reproduction | ||||||
| CVE-Bench ( 2025 ) | Web-app exploitation | ||||||
| ExploitGym ( 2026a ) | Userspace/V8/kernel |
| Protocol family / domain | Envs. | Ampl. / DoS | Poison / deceive | Smuggle / parse | Forge / auth | Confuse / downgrade | Disclosure / inference | Integrity / inject |
| DNS | 22 | – | – | – | ||||
| TLS/PKI | 16 | – | – | – | – | |||
| Transport / network | 11 | – | – | |||||
| Email (SMTP/auth) | 8 | – | – | – | – | |||
| HTTP / Web | 7 | – | – | – | ||||
| CDN | 6 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Model | L1 | L2 | L3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 48.8 | 35.0 | 12.5 |
| Kimi K3 | 37.5 | 25.0 | 8.8 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 35.0 | 23.8 | 11.3 |
| GLM-5.3 | 32.5 | 23.8 | 11.3 |
| Qwen3.8-Max | 26.3 | 21.3 | 8.8 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | GLM-5.3 | Kimi K3 | Qwen3.8-Max | |||||||||||
| Domain ( ) | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 |
| DNS (22) | 45.5 | 40.9 | 13.6 | 31.8 | 27.3 | 4.5 | 27.3 | 27.3 | 4.5 | 31.8 | 22.7 | 4.5 | 22.7 | 18.2 | 0 |
| TLS/PKI (16) | 62.5 | 43.8 | 18.8 | 37.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 37.5 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 50 | 37.5 | 12.5 | 43.8 | 18.8 | 12.5 |
| Transport (11) | 63.6 | 27.3 | 9.1 | 54.5 | 27.3 | 9.1 | 36.4 | 18.2 | 9.1 | 36.4 | 36.4 | 9.1 | 27.3 | 9.1 | 9.1 |
| Email (8) | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25 | 25 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HTTP/Web (7) | 42.9 | 28.6 | 0 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 14.3 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | GLM-5.3 | Kimi K3 | Qwen3.8-Max | |||||||||||
| Category ( ) | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L1 | L2 | L3 |
| Ampl./DoS (16) | 56.3 | 43.8 | 6.3 | 37.5 | 31.3 | 6.3 | 37.5 | 50 | 0 | 37.5 | 18.8 | 6.3 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 0 |
| Poison/deceive (13) | 23.1 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 0 | 7.7 | 0 | 0 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 0 | 7.7 | 0 | 0 |
| Smuggle/parse (7) | 71.4 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 14.3 |
| Forge/auth (21) | 42.9 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 33.3 | 19.0 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 19.0 | 14.3 | 38.1 | 23.8 | 9.5 | 38.1 | 28.6 | 19.0 |
| Confuse/downgrade (6) | 50 | 50 | 16.7 | 50 | 33.3 | 0 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 50 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 50 | 16.7 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Traffic flow | Query-input bytes | Downstream-response bytes |
|---|---|---|
| Agent queries received by the resolver | Included | Excluded |
| Resolver responses sent to clients | Excluded | Included |
| Resolver queries forwarded upstream | Excluded | Excluded |
| Agent-operated authoritative responses | Excluded | Included when forwarded downstream |
AI Agent Security Benchmarks
AI agent security benchmarks measure how tool-using and autonomous systems handle attacks, privacy risks, authorization, and harmful actions.
See all 301 papers