LLMs for Cybersecurity

Security Operations Centers (SOCs) for information technology and operational technology share one incident-response problem: a flood of correlated alerts and too few analysts. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as reasoning engines that triage alerts and, in autonomous deployments, issue commands that block IPs, kill processes, or quarantine files on production hosts. This coupling introduces a new risk: a single adversarial alert can become a remote code path through the LLM's reasoning, leading it to recommend an action the SOC then executes. We present a constrained-action architecture with two coordinated layers: (i) a SIEM/XDR control plane that grounds remediation in correlated host events and confines the LLM's output to a closed intent vocabulary whose templated commands are executed by thin endpoint agents, backstopped by an argument validator; and (ii) a NeMo-Guardrails proxy that wraps the SOC-analyst LLM with input- and output-rail policies, evaluated out-of-the-box against a SOC-specific adversarial corpus we release. The stock proxy lifts injection recall from 25.0% to 94.5% at a 0.1% false-positive rate, and a live red-team exercise confirms that the closed intent vocabulary and argument validator contain the observed LLM failure modes before any command crosses the trust boundary. As an architectural fit (not yet a measured operational-technology deployment), the constrained-action property suits critical-infrastructure settings where a wrong remediation has physical, not merely operational, consequences. The loop is best run human-in-the-loop or delayed: the measured rail latency keeps inline control out of scope.

Large language models can triage malware through direct verdicts or behavioral claims scored by an external policy. We present MARS, a malware triage framework, and compare direct classification with single-pass claim scoring using the same evidence collector and identical static evidence bundles for each model. The evaluation covers 1,195 PE and ELF binaries grouped into 1,001 near-duplicate clusters and six language models, with deterministic rules providing a baseline. Direct classification is more accurate for all six models. On samples with usable outputs from both paths, its accuracy advantage ranges from 3.7 to 20.9 percentage points, with all 95% cluster-bootstrap confidence intervals for the differences above zero. It also achieves higher malicious alert recall in ten of twelve platform and model combinations. Claim mediation provides no consistent reduction in performance variation across models. Separate subset studies find more consistent alert decisions for direct classification and a larger recall loss for the claim path when predefined indicator fields are removed. In a family identification probe, claims yield higher accuracy than verdict labels but lower accuracy than evidence text. Retained claims expose the inputs to verdict computation and permit policy revision without another model call. We reproduce archived verdicts exactly and apply a revised policy to the same records, including outputs from two additional models withdrawn by their provider. Under the evaluated claim taxonomy and additive policy, these results favor direct classification when only a verdict is required, while demonstrating that retained claims support explicit policy inspection and revision.

Detection engineers must translate threat reports, forensic observations, and hunt hypotheses into precise, testable rules. General-purpose large language models (LLMs) can draft such rules, but often produce invalid YAML, incorrect log sources, unsupported fields, or overly broad detection logic. This paper presents \emph{Sigma-Hunter}, a domain-adapted LLM for analyst-assistive Sigma rule generation and threat hunting. We build an instruction-tuning dataset from 3,635 validated open-source Sigma rules, expanded into 7,663 question-answer and analyst-reasoning examples. Each source rule is assigned to a single train, validation, or test partition before this expansion, so no rule leaks across splits. We fine-tune a 7B Mistral model and a Phi-4 model with LoRA and score held-out rule generations on syntax, approximate field consistency, and a semantic judgment of detection logic, completeness, selectivity, and log-source alignment. Sigma-Hunter-Mistral scores 8.17 overall, against 7.88 for the strongest general-purpose baseline and 4.61 for untuned Mistral. Two findings stand out: domain adaptation enables a compact 7B model to perform competitively with larger general-purpose models on this structured task, and syntactic validity is a weak proxy for semantic rule quality, as several baselines emit well-formed YAML carrying weak detection logic. The adapted models run locally, which suits detection engineering in disconnected environments where analysts cannot reach hosted model services.

The release decision for frontier AI systems increasingly relies on cyber capability benchmarks, yet public vulnerability benchmarks can expose agents to previously published advisories, exploits, and fixes, making it difficult to distinguish prior exposure from capability on unseen vulnerabilities. We evaluate open-weight and proprietary AI models on exploit generation, vulnerability repair and subsequent attacks in five nonpublic software environments, including vulnerabilities we privately disclosed while they remained unpatched. Researcher-developed and reviewed deterministic graders, not LLM judges, determine task scores. Comparisons with 209 disclosed vulnerabilities and cryptographic challenges reveal substantial variation across systems and vulnerability types. Repair scores exceed attack scores in two nonpublic environments and fall below them in three. Passing an initial security test is also insufficient: another exploit succeeds in 92 of 524 non-independent defender test intervals after the initial exploit is stopped. These results motivate vulnerability-specific attack-repair comparisons and subsequent resistance tests.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for automated software vulnerability analysis. Binary classification alone is insufficient; practitioners need explanations to triage bugs and engineer patches. Standard practice relies on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, but free-form reasoning allows models to obscure logical leaps, hallucinated execution steps, and internal inconsistencies behind plausible prose. Our manual audit reveals that approximately 60% of correct vulnerability verdicts are accompanied by fabricated or unverifiable claims, and free-form explanations allow reasoning errors to evade LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. We present Vulnerability Explanation Reasoning Auditor (VERA), an automated framework for auditing LLM vulnerability reasoning. Rather than accepting free-form text, VERA asks models to output a Structured Reasoning Record (SRR) encoding tracked pointers, memory operations, and state transitions in machine-readable fields. A multi-stage judge audits each SRR against eight reasoning failure modes using deterministic checks, with LLM calls reserved for semantic interpretation. The standardized SRR schema also enables automated mutation testing to benchmark judges at scale without human annotation. Our evaluation shows reasoning flaws occur in correct verdicts just as frequently as incorrect ones, and VERA exposes 87% of reasoning errors that free-form LLM-as-judge systematically miss.

The increasing complexity and scale of modern cyber-attacks demand intelligent and computationally efficient Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS). However, designing effective data pre-processing pipelines traditionally involves substantial trial-and-error effort and repeated evaluation of alternative configurations. For large, high-dimensional network traffic data, this process can create a significant computational burden. In this work, we propose AutoDP-LLM, an automated pre-processing framework designed to reduce manual pipeline development and computational overhead. Specifically, AutoDP-LLM leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to autonomously generate and validate executable data pre-processing pipelines. The framework combines deterministic host-side planning with LLM-based specialist agents to formulate data-processing strategies, synthesize executable code, and adaptively determine retained feature sets using semantic reasoning and training-derived statistical evidence, without requiring a predefined feature budget. Focusing on multiclass intrusion detection, we evaluate AutoDP-LLM on the UNSW-NB15 and NSL-KDD benchmark datasets using multiple downstream classifiers. Comparative experiments against conventional feature-selection methods show that AutoDP-LLM achieves competitive detection performance while automating the generation of compact and executable pre-processing pipelines. Component-level ablation experiments further demonstrate the complementary contributions of the semantic and statistical feature-reduction components. The repeated generation, validation, execution, and assessment of candidate pipelines are amenable to parallel execution, highlighting the potential of scalable computing environments, including high-performance computing (HPC) systems, to support automated IDS pipeline development.

LLMs are increasingly applied to cybersecurity workflows, where they are expected to translate analysts' intent into tool invocations. However, existing evaluations focus on knowledge-based assessments or end-to-end agentic tasks, and do not directly measure LLMs' ability to generate executable commands for real-world cybersecurity tools. This gap is critical because cybersecurity operations rely on strict command-line interfaces (CLIs), where minor syntax errors, incorrect flag--value bindings, or argument misordering can invalidate execution. We introduce KaliBench, a fine-grained benchmark and dataset for natural-language--to--CLI translation on Kali Linux, comprising 8,504 query--command pairs spanning 1,642 tools across 23 capability dimensions and 5 security phases. KaliBench is constructed via a manuscript-grounded pipeline with deterministic canonicalization and alias-aware evaluation, enabling precise and reproducible assessment of tool selection and argument construction. To ensure both semantic correctness and practical executability, we develop a multi-stage verification pipeline that combines LLM-based validation, sandboxed terminal execution, and human-in-the-loop refinement. Building on these fine-grained, deterministic signals, KaliBench further enables runtime-free verifiable rewards for training. Across three evaluation modes and 24 configurations of general-purpose and security-focused open-weight models, no open-weight model exceeds 42% exact-command accuracy in the unrestricted setting, highlighting the difficulty of accurate CLI-based cybersecurity tool use without explicit tool hints. We further show that supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards derived from KaliBench significantly improve an 8B model and achieve performance comparable to a 685B MoE model.

When a SCADA alarm is raised in a water distribution network, operators must decide quickly whether it reflects a cyberattack, a physical fault, a normal transient or a faulty sensor. Supervised classifiers need labelled incidents that utilities rarely have, and frontier large language models (LLMs) take tens of seconds per decision. We tested whether Jev, a training-free model that returns class probabilities in about one second, can serve as the first tier of this triage. On a four-class cause-attribution benchmark built on the C-Town network in EPANET, Jev was compared with a hand-written rule tree, a supervised classifier and seven cloud LLMs on identical evidence in four sealed, pre-registered rounds. With only a label-free prior correction, Jev matched the rule tree (macro-F1 0.62-0.64 against 0.56-0.61 in distribution) and exceeded the supervised classifier by 0.36-0.42 on event subtypes absent from its labels, in all four rounds, and it outperformed the classifier whenever fewer than about four labelled events per class were available. Jev also decided 20-40 times faster than frontier LLMs. Accepting only benign Jev verdicts confirmed by the rule tree spared an LLM reviewer 35-38% of windows on fresh sealed sets without loss of macro-F1. Transferred unchanged to two further networks, this gated cascade stayed within the non-inferiority margin of its reviewer on all four sets. A fast, training-free screen can therefore take over about a third of the review load in SCADA anomaly triage while preserving the accuracy of deliberate review.

Machine-learning Network Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) depend on substantial labeled datasets and task-specific training, whereas Large Language Models (LLMs) detection can analyze flow records directly but incurs higher inference cost and latency, with less constrained outputs. This paper presents JEV-IDS, an open experimental general NIDS based on the Jev System One Model (SOM) to detect zero day intrusions Under label scarcity. JEV-IDS serializes one flow per request and asks JEV two questions: a binary attack probability and a finite-choice traffic category. Our results show that, at k=1, JEV was 4.8 times faster and 3.8 times cheaper than GPT-5.6 Luna, with 1.5 times higher novel-attack recall; it also produced 15 times fewer false alarms than a low-data Random Forest. Across 5,400 decisions on a 300-flow NSL-KDD pilot split, JEV achieved F1-Score 0.859, precision 0.941, recall 0.790, and novel-attack recall 0.838. Increasing k to 2 reduced its F1-Score to 0.839.

An autonomous cyber defender trained with reinforcement learning (RL) is typically tied to the network on which it was trained, limiting its ability to generalize as network scale changes. Hierarchical RL reduces decision complexity by separating strategic targeting from tactical execution, but it does not eliminate this retraining dependence. We investigate whether frozen, zero-shot large language models (LLMs) can provide retraining-free control in hierarchical cyber defense and how performance changes as LLM control is extended from planning to execution. We formulate a controller-agnostic planner-executor hierarchy in which the planner selects a subnet to defend over a fixed horizon and the executor selects defensive actions within that subnet. Using the high fidelity Cyberwheel environment, with its built-in automated red team agent mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, we compare RL+RL, LLM+RL, and LLM+LLM configurations using six models ranging from 3B to 70B parameters, including two cybersecurity-specialized models, across small, medium, and large networks. Replacing only the planner with an LLM yields limited gains as network size increases. In contrast, extending LLM control to execution produces notable improvements for sufficiently capable models. For instance, a frozen general purpose 70B model holds successful lateral movement to approximately 1% of steps and attacker impact near zero across all three network scales using the same model weights, while the RL baseline is retrained for each scale. Our results show that sufficiently capable frozen LLMs can maintain strong defensive performance across the evaluated network scales without task-specific retraining, while also indicating that strong tactical execution is important to realizing the benefits of LLM-based control.

Autonomous red team agents increasingly stress-test AI-enabled cyber defenses by planning strategy and executing multistage attacks. Reinforcement learning (RL) and large language models (LLMs) offer complementary mechanisms for the planning and execution such agents require, and prior work has combined them in hybrid hierarchies. Yet a given architecture is typically developed and evaluated within a single environment, leaving open whether an observed advantage reflects a generally stronger decision mechanism or merely alignment with a particular setting. We address this gap with a controlled cross-environment comparison of two homogeneous hierarchical red team architectures: an RL planner with an RL executor (RL+RL) and an LLM planner with an LLM executor (LLM+LLM). We evaluate both against expert autonomous defenders in CybORG CAGE-4 and in Cyberwheel at two network scales, across 18 configurations under one unified disruption metric. We find a pronounced environment-dependent inversion. RL+RL wins the compact, densely rewarded CAGE-4 (78.5% disruption success versus 18.0% for the strongest LLM configuration) and the 100-host Cyberwheel network (81.0% versus 50.5%), while a pretrained cybersecurity LLM agent wins the larger, escalation-gated 1010-host Cyberwheel network (55.0% versus 0.0% for RL). A kill-chain analysis explains the inversion through architecture-specific bottlenecks that aggregate success rates conceal.In the 1010-host Cyberwheel network, RL discovers and compromises hosts but stalls at privilege escalation, whereas in CAGE-4, LLM agents obtain privileged access but rarely convert it into operational impact. These results indicate that conclusions drawn in a single environment may not generalize, and that hybrid planner-executor designs should be motivated by specific failure modes rather than the assumption that one architecture is universally preferable.

Large language model (LLM) agents could help security operations centers (SOCs) investigate advanced persistent threats (APTs) by turning weak leads into evidence for intrusion scoping and response. Yet success under one telemetry setting does not establish robustness to changes in log collection, retention, or sampling. We introduce APTInvestBench, a benchmark for evaluating cross-telemetry robustness in autonomous APT investigation. It comprises 370 cases across seven SOC-inspired conditions, derived from 56 report-informed attack reconstructions with 16.4 million log records. Agents investigate unverified leads and submit reports with record-level citations. Fixed action-level support requirements track sufficient evidence across available logs, query returns, and formal citations, separating telemetry limitations from acquisition and reporting gaps. Across eleven LLMs, agents acquire sufficient evidence for 44.3% of recoverable attack actions on average, while formal citations support only 25.0%. More importantly, aggregate coverage can conceal substantial instability: from Full to endpoint-only telemetry, coverage declines by only 1.6 percentage points, yet 35.5% of previously covered actions lose sufficient citation support despite remaining recoverable. Across four frameworks, such losses persist even when registered supporting records remain unchanged. APTInvestBench provides reusable investigation environments and diagnostic evaluation for identifying these gaps and developing more reliable defensive agents.

Security operations centers receive far more alerts than analysts can investigate, and organizations that cannot send their telemetry to hosted models must automate triage with small open-weight LLMs on their own hardware. Current LLM agents leave the investigation procedure to the model, and small local models fail at it: they probe without converging, never commit to a verdict, or dismiss real attacks. In this paper, we present HESP, a controller that holds the investigation procedure outside the model. HESP keeps a ledger of competing explanations, selects read-only probes by expected information gain per cost, accepts only verdicts backed by current evidence, can end an investigation itself, and journals every prediction before its observation. We evaluated HESP in four pre-registered studies with five open-weight models from two families (7B to 72B), totalling 7,272 audited episodes in a controlled triage environment. With likelihood tables counted from LLM-free runs, HESP lifts Qwen2.5-7B from 0.125 to 1.000 verified completion, matching oracle tables. The information-gain ranking adds +0.26 to +0.35 on every model that concludes, and a controller-side stop lifts Llama-3.1-8B, which never concludes on its own, from 0 to 0.917. What to probe and when to stop are therefore separate failures, and different small models exhibit different ones. Because HESP and its planner run entirely on local hardware, it suits environments where telemetry cannot leave the premises. We release all code, protocols, and episode journals at https://github.com/lzwhehe/HESP.

Multi-stage LLM-based cyber agents may complete attack workflows while remaining brittle, costly, or reliant on incorrect interpretations of execution evidence. Success rates alone obscure inefficiency, adaptation through retries, and recognition of success or failure. We present an end-to-end diagnostic study of an Autonomous Adversary system with orchestrator, executor, and validator LLMs in enterprise-like lateral-movement scenarios. Six frontier models are evaluated across two scenarios and three modes: expert-defined, self-scaffolded, and fully autonomous. We assess validator consistency and evidence grounding; introduce a subtask-conditioned, cost-aware score for abnormal token use, retries, and runtime; and use comparative LLM-as-a-Judge analysis to identify planning deficiencies, including tool misalignment, plan similarity, over-specification, inadequate probing, and weak recovery. Validators are generally relevant and evidence-grounded but often nonspecific and overly optimistic. Bottlenecks cluster in credential and lateral-movement tasks, spread with scenario complexity, and vary more under full autonomy. Reliable evaluation must assess outcomes, evidence interpretation, resource use, and adaptation after failure.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to the automated repair of C/C++ security vulnerabilities, and compile rate is a commonly reported proxy for progress: whether the generated patch compiles. We argue that compile rate is a scientifically unreliable metric for single-function vulnerability repair, and we support this with five controlled experiments over 203 vulnerable functions from Big-Vul, three open-source code LLMs (350M to 6.7B parameters), and three prompting strategies. Compile rate (i) barely responds to an intervention that substantially improves the generated code; (ii) is dominated by evaluation-harness and dataset artifacts rather than model quality, with about 64% of compile failures not attributable to the model, a share that is nearly invariant across models; (iii) shifts by 1.8 to 2.7 times on identical patches under a single compiler-standard flag, with zero regressions; (iv) ranks the three models in the opposite order to reference-similarity metrics; and (v) rewards non-repairs when used as an optimization target, since a compiler-feedback loop raises compile rate while similarity to the human fix falls, with manual inspection finding deletion- and placeholder-style non-repairs among the newly compiling outputs. The natural fallback, whole-function CodeBLEU, also fails: an unchanged copy of the vulnerable input outscores every model. We also examine diff_F1, a change-aware screen that scores only the edited region. It gives exactly zero credit to a no-op and near-zero credit to some, though not all, of the deletion-based gaming patches we observed, while still crediting genuine partial edits, so it may serve as a cheap screen before deeper, execution-based analysis. It is not a repair-quality metric, and we report where it falls short. Our findings argue for change-aware, execution-grounded evaluation of LLM-based vulnerability repair.

Large language models are being integrated into malware triage workflows as reasoning components that summarize static evidence and produce analyst-facing verdicts. This paper shows that the same reasoning capability introduces a new attack surface. We present ALIBI, a semantic cover story attack against frontier LLM-based malware analyzers. ALIBI adds a small, non-executed read-only section to a compiled binary, containing a coherent but false security product narrative, without altering imports or executable behavior. Instead of issuing direct instructions to the model, it reframes suspicious evidence as expected behavior of a benign endpoint security tool. On a frozen PE set of 50 malicious samples, the payload flips 30 of the 35 baseline-malicious samples to benign on Gemini 2.5 Pro, while GPT-5.5 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 produce substantial severity downgrades with significant confidence reductions even when verdict labels are preserved. The attack transfers to ELF binaries, where Gemini flips 16 of 40. A verification-guided defense prompt roughly halves the benign verdicts, but 42.9 percent of malicious samples still reach benign. LLM malware analyzers therefore require provenance checks that separate verified facts from attacker-controlled claims, not narrative trust.

Cybersecurity combines high-stakes analysis with complex technical language, making it an impactful and challenging domain for LLMs. We present MiST (Mid-trained Security Transformer), a suite of 8B and 32B models that achieve strong performance on public cybersecurity benchmarks. We use mid-training as an intermediate adaptation stage between general pre-training and cybersecurity training. Rather than performing continual pre-training over large volumes of raw domain text, we curate a compact, expert-vetted seed corpus, and transform it into high-quality domain-specific synthetic training data. The final MiST checkpoints improve mean cybersecurity accuracy by +13.1 and +8.6 absolute percentage points over the corresponding Qwen baselines for 8B and 32B, respectively, corresponding to relative gains of +27.0% and +15.8%. Ablation results further show that these cybersecurity gains arise in the mid-training and supervised fine-tuning stages through a combination of the synthetic data generation flows. Furthermore, we show that MiST provides a stronger initialization for downstream task-specific fine-tuning adaptation and reinforcement learning.

AI-driven penetration testing has been demonstrated with premium frontier models such as GPT-4, but the per-engagement token cost makes continuous, automated testing unaffordable for the smaller organisations that need it most. This paper presents PentestChain, a ten-phase automated penetration testing framework that couples a curated, deterministic exploit map with a cost-aware AI cascade-a local Ollama model (qwen2.5-7b) first, then free-tier OpenRouter and Cerebras, with a rule-based fallback that always produces output-and exposes the full pipeline through a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server with eleven tools. We make three contributions. First, we treat US-dollar cost per engagement as a measured, first-class evaluation metric and show that a 7B-parameter local model, kept off the critical path by a deterministic backbone, sustains end-to-end operation at zero measured paid-API cost. Second, we analyse the attack surface that an MCP-exposed offensive engine introduces, grounding a four-position threat model in the 2025 MCP incident record (the CVE-2025-6514 remote-code-execution flaw in mcp-remote, the postmark-mcp supply-chain backdoor, and the tool-poisoning-rug-pull-line-jumping class), and contribute four mitigations. Third, we specify a reproducible, containerised evalua-tion protocol aligned with the standardised testbeds now expected at top-tier venues-AutoPenBench, a Cybench subset, and the PentestGPT 182-sub-task benchmark-with multi-trial statistics (more than 10 trials per configuration, pass-at-k, non-parametric significance tests and effect sizes) and direct, same testbed reproduction of the PentestGPT and PentestAgent baselines rather than citation of their published numbers. On the legacy targets measured to date, the framework detected 26 services, enriched 34 CVEs, produced

Language-model agents increasingly operate over complete software repositories, yet cybersecurity evaluations primarily measure whether they can detect, reproduce, or repair vulnerabilities rather than whether they can locate the relevant code. We study vulnerability localization: given a weakness class and an unfamiliar repository, identify the implementation files associated with that weakness. We introduce the Vulnerability Localization Benchmark (VLoc Bench), comprising 500 real world vulnerabilities from 290 repositories across six package ecosystems and 147 CWE categories. Each task pairs repository snapshots immediately before and after a security fix. On the vulnerable snapshot, an agent receives only the CWE description and read-only terminal access and must return the affected files; on the patched snapshot, it must determine that the recorded vulnerability is no longer present. We evaluate 27 language models and four static-analysis tools under a common agent interface. Repository-scale vulnerability localization remains difficult: the strongest system achieves 0.229 File F1, and 38.4% of tasks receive no correct localization from any evaluated model. We further find that stronger localization does not imply reliable behavior after remediation: systems that identify vulnerable files effectively can still report unsupported locations on patched repositories. These results establish vulnerability localization as a distinct repository-scale capability and provide a setting for studying both how security agents search for vulnerable code and when they should refrain from reporting it.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into Security Operations Centers (SOCs) streamlines threat intelligence but introduces critical vulnerabilities, notably indirect prompt injection via log poisoning. Adversaries exploit this vector to execute multistep ``promptware'' kill chains by embedding malicious payloads within system logs to hijack the LLM's operational logic. Securing this pipeline presents a dichotomy: deterministic defenses are computationally efficient yet semantically blind, while purely neural evaluations introduce prohibitive latency and probabilistic flaws. To address this, we propose a novel neurosymbolic defense-in-depth architecture that ensures end-to-end pipeline integrity. The primary layer employs customized SIEM decoders as a deterministic pre-filter, performing immediate structural sanitization to neutralize volumetric padding and signature-based injections at the ingestion edge. The secondary layer leverages NeMo Guardrails to enforce strict semantic boundaries through self-checking validation on the structured SIEM alerts prior to LLM processing. Furthermore, the framework integrates a closed-loop telemetry system, providing critical Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) visibility into thwarted attacks directly within the SOC dashboard. We present a comprehensive experimental evaluation mapped to the MITRE ATLAS taxonomy, assessing the framework against diverse prompt injections. Our results demonstrate that this synergistic approach effectively dismantles the promptware kill chain - bounding LLM stochasticity with verifiable constraints, and delivering a resilient, highly observable defense mechanism for next-generation AI-SOCs.

The proliferation of highly capable open-weight Small Language Models (SLMs) democratizes access to advanced cybersecurity capabilities, posing an escalating risk as these models can bypass proprietary API guardrails when deployed locally. However, SLMs deployed as autonomous agents often struggle with long-horizon, exploratory tasks like cybersecurity Capture The Flag (CTF) challenges due to context bloat and cognitive degradation from accumulated tool-call outputs. To understand and mitigate this cybersecurity threat, we introduce context segmentation, a two-level agentic framework that divides complex exploitation tasks into manageable, contextually isolated sub-problems. Evaluating on the picoCTF dataset using memory-constrained gemma-4 models, we demonstrate that for the E4B model, our strategy acts as an intelligent search, achieving competitive rewards with superior token efficiency compared to brute-force retries, and successfully solving 18.52% of tasks that standard agentic execution fails to complete. Code is available at https://github.com/9xeb/context-segmentation.

Threat hunting increasingly depends on converting unstructured knowledge (e.g., Cyber Threat Intelligence reports) into actionable hunt leads: concise, investigable hypotheses grounded in observable artifacts and adversary techniques. Producing such leads manually is a tedious and hard-to-scale task. Existing automated approaches stop at the entity layer, ignore the defender's operational environment, and analyze each report in isolation. To address these gaps, we introduce AHLERT, a system that automatically extracts relevant, environment-aware, and hunt leads from threat reports through (i) a hybrid retriever that combines dense vector search with multi-hop traversal over a knowledge graph seeded with MITRE ATT&CK; (ii) an ontology-grounding retrieval-augmented generation method that constrains each lead to the defender's own assets and controls; and (iii) an LLM-agnostic framework that emits structured, directly actionable leads rather than loose indicators of compromise. We evaluate AHLERT on public CTI reports for well-known APTs across multiple proprietary and open-weight models. Hybrid evidence retrieval with ontology grounding raises mean F1 by ~2x (0.44 to 0.85) over a single-route flat-RAG baseline, and AHLERT attains the highest effectiveness score (~86.95%) compared with off-the-shelf LLM models.

Large language model (LLM) benchmarks are often treated as fixed datasets with stable scores, yet their outcomes depend on configurable evaluation pipelines. We audit eight cybersecurity benchmarks across 10 proprietary, open-weight, and cybersecurity-specialized LLMs. By modeling benchmarks as measurement pipelines, we identify 15 systematic failure modes and show that a single pipeline choice can change a model's score by more than 80 percentage points and substantially alter model rankings. At the cross-benchmark level, two semantically similar task pairs rank the same models differently because of incompatible evaluation conventions. Under an evaluation harness that standardizes pipeline choices while preserving task semantics, nine of 10 models shift by at least three ranks on at least one benchmark. These results show that cybersecurity LLM benchmark scores are pipeline-dependent and motivate pipeline-aware auditing as a core requirement for reliable model evaluation.

Training capable cyber agents is often treated primarily as a problem of model scale, yet open-weight post-training is constrained more directly by the cost of executable environments, reliable multi-turn supervision, and access to strong teachers. We present a data-centric framework that addresses these bottlenecks through five complementary systems: Choulea analyzes hidden reasoning signatures, SkyReal reduces teacher-sampling cost, Hongzwang bypasses API restrictions on teacher execution, PSBreakup restores capabilities weakened by model merging, and Kreator converts expert interventions into trainable reasoning. Our data engine constructs resettable coding, vulnerability, CTF, kernel-history, full-exploit, firmware, and device-backed environments. Candidate trajectories are retained only after execution verification and evidence auditing, yielding 164,269 trajectories for long-context supervised fine-tuning. The three checkpoints improve over their starting models by an average of 23.76% on the full CyberGym suite and 10.49% across the pooled CTF suites. As of September 1, 2026, Feyospace-s1 achieves a verified success rate of 63.24% and ranks 10th on the official CyberGym leaderboard, while all three checkpoints rank 1st among models at comparable parameter scales. To our knowledge, this is the first end-to-end demonstration that a seven-person independent team can train open-weight models with leading agentic cyber capability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can solve complex problems, but their misuse in high-risk domains can lead to severe consequences. Model providers therefore restrict assistance for potentially harmful requests. Refusing all cybersecurity requests would therefore harm legitimate users. Providers need a mechanism to block malicious use without denying legitimate assistance to defenders. Existing cybersecurity-specific datasets evaluate this mechanism, but none considers the conversational context of a request. We introduce 3R-Bench (Refusal, Repetition, and Revision), a benchmark of 150 real-world cybersecurity requests augmented with two adversarial conversational settings, and evaluate eight LLMs on it. Prior assistant behavior strongly changes responses to an unchanged request: among 376 available pairs from a 400-pair panel, compliance rises from 62.0% after refused history to 85.1% after accepted history. The opposite pattern appears under dialogue decomposition. In comparison, compliance falls from 501/800 direct responses to 172/800 after dialogue; among 738 pairs returning model-authored text in both conditions, the decrease is 45.1 points. Failure feedback recovers only a small fraction of this loss.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in coding capabilities, their potential in cybersecurity has drawn increasing research attention, with closed-source LLMs (e.g., Mythos) delivering advanced cybersecurity capabilities. However, existing open-source efforts remain limited: frontier open-weight models do not provide reproducible cybersecurity training solutions, open-source training solutions focus on isolated tasks and lack scalable agentic data, and scaling agentic rollouts requires strong domain priors. In this work, we introduce \textbf{CyberFactory}, a unified open-source framework that connects data construction, trajectory synthesis, and model training across proof-of-concept (PoC) generation, vulnerability patching, and cybersecurity question answering (CyberQA). CyberFactory transforms public vulnerability artifacts, including CVEs from the wild, into executable and verifiable task instances. It further uses a reusable vulnerability-analysis skill to guide the teacher through source inspection, problem solving with domain prior, and evidence-based validation. The resulting supervision is agentic: the model interacts with tools and target environments and revises its solutions according to execution feedback. Using these trajectories, we train and release \modelname\footnote{\emph{Aegis} is, in Greek mythology, the protective shield of Zeus and Athena; the name reflects the model's defensive, security-oriented purpose.}, which internalizes the skill-guided procedure without requiring the skill at inference time. On CyberGym, \modelname reaches 52.4% Pass@1 under a one-hour budget, improving over its Qwen~3.5 base model by +22.8 points and outperforming the evaluated general-purpose backbones under the same scaffold.

Autonomous vehicles depend on large safety-critical software stacks, where weaknesses reachable from adversarial inputs may affect steering, braking, or other control decisions. Static analysis can identify candidate sites, but dynamically confirming exploitability requires executable test artifacts that are difficult to construct manually. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can automate this process for Autoware, an open-source autonomous-driving stack. We perform compiler-precise static analysis across 185 packages, identifying 1,375 decision rules, 2,274 validation checks, and 482 input-to-safety-output flows, from which we derive a weakness taxonomy and sample 740 reachable sites. Two local open-weight LLMs, a no-static-context ablation, and a naive-template baseline generate 3,700 artifact sets, which are compiled against the real build under sanitizers, repaired through compiler-in-the-loop feedback, and fuzzed when executable. The main result is a build-integration failure taxonomy showing that 80% of first-shot compilation failures arise from dependency wiring rather than program logic. The reasoning model compiled 64% of harnesses on the first attempt, compared with 6% for the code-specialized model. Repair achieved full object-compileability for the reasoning model only through extensive stubbing; fewer than half of its harnesses reached the fuzzer, and all 37 observed crashes originated in stubbed code rather than Autoware. No candidate weakness was dynamically confirmed within budget. These results show that build integration, not candidate generation or fuzzing, is the primary barrier to reliable LLM-assisted dynamic analysis of full autonomous-vehicle software stacks.

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.

Real-world cyberattacks often require sustained progress across multiple hosts and network segments, making multi-hop cyber ranges essential infrastructure for studying and improving LLM agents' ability to sustain complete attack chains. Prior work has scaled isolated vulnerability tasks and constructed multi-host scenarios from manually specified vulnerability semantics. However, they are still unable to automatically orchestrate the growing supply of vulnerability environments into end-to-end validated multi-hop ranges. To this end, we present RangeFactory, an automated cyber-range orchestration framework that constructs multi-hop cyber ranges at scale from isolated vulnerability environments. RangeFactory formulates range construction as dependency resolution: it extracts dependency information from agents' actual attacks against real vulnerabilities, resolves known dependencies through template-guided orchestration, and uses end-to-end attack execution to validate runtime dependencies that emerge after composition. Using RangeFactory, we construct RangeBench with 1,148 validated range instances spanning 287 distinct attack chains and evaluate frontier attack agents across attack depth, network scale, and task information. Among runs that compromise the entry vulnerability, 24.5-47.0% still fail to complete the remaining attack path, revealing a substantial sustained-compromise gap between establishing an initial foothold and completing a multi-hop attack. RangeFactory further produces a corpus of 5,541 outcome-annotated multi-hop attack trajectories, providing execution data for attack-process analysis and future agent training.

Mapping cyber threat intelligence (CTI) text to MITRE ATT&CK techniques is essential for structured threat analysis, yet manual annotation is costly and does not scale. The ATT&CK taxonomy comprises several hundred attack techniques, and a single CTI passage may describe multiple techniques, making accurate and complete extraction challenging. Existing automated approaches fall short in different ways: multi-label classifiers struggle with severe class imbalance and the large label space, while LLM-based methods--retrieval pipelines and fine-tuned generators--optimize token-level objectives that treat technique annotation as sequence generation rather than set prediction, lacking direct supervision on whether the predicted technique set is correct and complete. We propose TTP-R1, a two-stage framework that combines retrieval-augmented supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with reinforcement learning using verifiable rewards (RLVR). A hybrid retriever first narrows the large label space to a candidate set, and a fine-tuned LLM learns to select the correct techniques. We then apply Group Relative Policy Optimization with a decomposed reward that directly supervises the precision, recall, and output format of the predicted technique set. Across four CTI benchmarks, TTP-R1 achieves the best average F1, improving sub-technique-level F1 by 7.4 percentage points over Claude Sonnet 4.5 with retrieval augmentation, while running 28x faster when served as an 8B-parameter model on a single GPU.