Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2602.17622

What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?

Gelei Deng·Yi Liu·Yuekang Li·Ruozhao Yang·Xiaofei Xie·Jie Zhang·Han Qiu·Tianwei Zhang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

LLM-based agents show promise for automating penetration testing, yet reported performance varies widely across systems and benchmarks. We analyze 28 LLM-based penetration testing systems and evaluate five representative implementations across three benchmarks of increasing complexity. Our analysis reveals two distinct failure modes: Type A failures stem from capability gaps (missing tools, inadequate prompts) that engineering readily addresses, while Type B failures persist regardless of tooling due to planning and state management limitations. We show that Type B failures share a root cause that is largely invariant to the underlying LLM: agents lack real-time task difficulty estimation. As a result, agents misallocate effort, over-commit to low-value branches, and exhaust context before completing attack chains. Based on this insight, we present Excalibur, a penetration testing agent that couples strong tooling with difficulty-aware planning. A Tool and Skill Layer eliminates Type A failures through typed interfaces and retrieval-augmented knowledge. A Task Difficulty Assessment (TDA) mechanism addresses Type B failures by estimating tractability through four measurable dimensions (horizon estimation, evidence confidence, context load, and historical success) and uses these estimates to guide exploration-exploitation decisions within an Evidence-Guided Attack Tree Search (EGATS) framework. Excalibur achieves up to 91% task completion on CTF benchmarks with frontier models (39 to 49% relative improvement over baselines) and compromises 4 of 5 hosts on the GOAD Active Directory environment versus 2 by prior systems. These results show that difficulty-aware planning yields consistent end-to-end gains across models and addresses a limitation that model scaling alone does not eliminate.

Explore related subjects

cs.CRcs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gelei Deng, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Ruozhao Yang, Xiaofei Xie, Jie Zhang, Han Qiu, Tianwei Zhang. 2026-02-19. What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17622

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Attack Tree Distance: a practical examination of tree difference measurement within cyber security

Attack trees are a popular threat modeling method. In practice, there is often a need to compare attack tree models produced by human experts, based on both the structure of the tree and the meaning of the node labels. In this work, we investigate the problem of comparing attack trees and measuring their similarity. We define five different measures for measuring the distance between two attack trees: Label Distance (LD), Tree Edit Distance (TED), Radical Distance (RD), Multiset Distance (MSD) and Weighted Sum Distance (WSD). We further propose a repeatable method of both theoretical and experimental attack tree distance measures validation. Our theoretical validation consists of a series of basic transformations to evaluate the behavior of distance measures with respect to specific types of transformations that may appear between two attack trees. To experimentally validate our distance measures, we designed and executed a human study ($n=39$) to collect a dataset of attack trees to be used for evaluation and comparison of the measures. From our theoretical and experimental results, we find that applying semantic similarity as a means of comparing node labels is a valid approach. Further, we find four of the five attack tree distance measures are valid approaches in certain, varying circumstances. Our results suggest that these methods can already be used to identify similar real-world attack trees. Overall, this work lays the groundwork for improved threat model analysis, validation of AI-generated attack trees, and future research into threat similarity measurement in cybersecurity.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Probabilistic Modeling of Jailbreak on Multimodal LLMs: From Quantification to Application

Recently, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated their superior ability in understanding multimodal content. However, they remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, which exploit weaknesses in their safety alignment to generate harmful responses. Previous studies categorize jailbreaks as successful or failed based on whether responses contain malicious content. However, given the stochastic nature of MLLM responses, this binary classification of an input's ability to jailbreak MLLMs is inappropriate. Derived from this viewpoint, we introduce jailbreak probability to quantify the jailbreak potential of an input, which represents the likelihood that MLLMs generated a malicious response when prompted with this input. We approximate this probability through multiple queries to MLLMs. After modeling the relationship between input hidden states and their corresponding jailbreak probability using Jailbreak Probability Prediction Network (JPPN), we use continuous jailbreak probability for optimization. Specifically, we propose Jailbreak-Probability-based Attack (JPA) that optimizes adversarial perturbations on input image to maximize jailbreak probability, and further enhance it as Multimodal JPA (MJPA) by including monotonic text rephrasing. To counteract attacks, we also propose Jailbreak-Probability-based Finetuning (JPF), which minimizes jailbreak probability through MLLM parameter updates. Extensive experiments show that (1) (M)JPA yields significant improvements when attacking a wide range of models under both white and black box settings. (2) JPF vastly reduces jailbreaks by at most over 60\%. Both of the above results demonstrate the significance of introducing jailbreak probability to make nuanced distinctions among input jailbreak abilities.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Differential Fault Analysis of Lilliput under Random-Location Nibble Faults

Differential fault analysis (DFA) is an important technique for evaluating the implementation-level security of block ciphers. Many DFA attacks assume that the adversary can inject faults into a selected internal word, nibble, or branch. Such fixed-location assumptions are convenient for deriving key-recovery equations, but they may overestimate the adversary's spatial control and may obscure the branch-dependent leakage behavior of multi-branch structures. In this paper, we study the lightweight block cipher Lilliput under a fixed-timing full-branch random-location nibble fault model. The attacker is assumed to induce a nonzero nibble fault in round 27, while the affected branch is randomly distributed over all sixteen state branches and is unknown to the attacker. The main challenge is to convert faulty ciphertexts with unknown injection locations into usable key-recovery constraints. We analyze the fault propagation induced by the EGFN structure of Lilliput and derive ciphertext-difference conditions for identifying the injected branch. The proposed branch-identification approach has a DDT-based combinatorial estimate of at least 99.9909% and achieves 99.9983% accuracy in 2^{20} random fault simulations. Once the fault branch is determined, we classify the corresponding propagation patterns according to whether the injected fault value and the intermediate S-box output difference can be uniquely determined. For each case, we derive DDT-based constraints on the last-round and penultimate-round subkeys and combine multiple faulty ciphertexts by candidate-set intersection. Simulation experiments over 2^{15} trials show that the attack reaches key-recovery success rates of over 90%, 95%, and 99% with 32, 36, and 46 faulty ciphertexts, respectively. These results show that Lilliput exhibits exploitable branch-dependent leakage even when the attacker cannot control the exact fault location.

cs.CR↗