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
×
✓
×
✓
✓
×
Table 1: Comparison of benchmark scope and task design.
Figure 1: ProtoArena architecture. Agents use scoped interfaces to achieve effect-level security objectives in running multi-component protocol environments. External monitors capture attack traffic and runtime logs for rule-based checks and LLM review to determine success or failure.
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
✓
–
✓
–
–
–
–
Table 2: Coverage by primary attack category. Each of the 80 environments is counted once. ✓ indicates at least one environment in a category; – indicates none under this primary-label convention.
Figure 2: DNSBomb deployment and threat-model correspondence. Left: the local benchmark, with the agent-run client and agent-built authority marked in orange. Right: the original DNSBomb attack illustration ( Li et al., 2024 ) . Labels A–D identify corresponding roles.
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
Table 3: Model pass rates (%) using OpenHands.
Claude Opus 4.8
DeepSeek V4 Pro
GLM-5.3
Kimi K3
Qwen3.8-Max
Domain ( n )
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
Table 4: Success rates (%) by protocol domain, model, and information level. Parentheses give each domain’s environment count, which is the denominator for its rates.
Claude Opus 4.8
DeepSeek V4 Pro
GLM-5.3
Kimi K3
Qwen3.8-Max
Category ( n )
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
Table 5: Success rates (%) by attack category, model, and information level.
Figure 4: Qualifying one-second intervals per 60 s window.
Figure 5: DNS Cross-Zone Benchmark: Out-of-Zone Cache Poisoning. GLM-5.3’s L3 trajectory in a local benchmark variant evaluating a recursive resolver’s acceptance and caching of out-of-zone records. Eight stages summarize agent actions and environment feedback.
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
Appendix
Table 6: Byte accounting for the DNSBomb optimization metric. Authoritative response bytes enter the numerator only when the resolver forwards them to clients; they are not part of the query-input denominator.
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China · Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China · Research Institute, Runjian Co., Ltd, China +1