Decoupling Reconnaissance and Exploitation: Measuring the Capability Boundaries of LLM-Based Web Penetration Testing
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25332v1
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 02:51:58 GMT
- Title: Decoupling Reconnaissance and Exploitation: Measuring the Capability Boundaries of LLM-Based Web Penetration Testing
- Abstract summary: We propose a two-stage decoupled evaluation framework that separates exploit execution from reconnaissance.<n>We empirically evaluate five open-source penetration-testing agents, covering multiagent, monolithic, and graph-driven architectures.
- Score: 8.293465530619246
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for automated penetration testing, yet existing end-to-end black-box evaluations are highly susceptible to error cascading: failures in early reconnaissance can mask an agent's actual ability to exploit vulnerabilities. To more accurately characterize these capabilities, we propose a two-stage decoupled evaluation framework that separates exploit execution from reconnaissance. Using ground-truth injection and knowledge-driven ablation across 70 high-fidelity web vulnerability testbeds, our framework isolates exploitation performance from reconnaissance noise. We empirically evaluate five open-source penetration-testing agents, covering multiagent, monolithic, and graph-driven architectures, on a strictly aligned subset of 50 representative vulnerabilities. The results reveal a substantial capability gap. With accurate vulnerability context, agents achieve a functional success rate of up to 90.0%, whereas autonomous reconnaissance, measured by targeted vulnerability recall, plateaus at approximately 50.0%, primarily due to failures in parsing unstructured telemetry. Cross-architectural analysis further reveals distinct capability niches: multi-agent isolation is more effective for long-sequence interactions such as de-serialization, while monolithic and graph-driven designs perform better on short-chain injections and cross-session access-control vulnerabilities, respectively. This decoupled evaluation work provides a fine-grained benchmarking protocol and an empirical basis for designing next-generation automated offensive security agents.
Related papers
- Red-MIRROR: Agentic LLM-based Autonomous Penetration Testing with Reflective Verification and Knowledge-augmented Interaction [0.42222053626544365]
This paper proposes Red-MIRROR, a novel multi-agent automated penetration testing system.<n>Red-MIRROR introduces a tightly coupled memory-reflection backbone to explicitly govern inter-agent reasoning.<n> Empirical evaluation on the XBOW benchmark and Vulhub CVEs shows that Red-MIRROR achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-28T04:34:09Z) - Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review [6.417595678110472]
We study whether confirmation bias affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks.<n>Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt.<n>Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-19T10:40:27Z) - Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z) - Automated Red-Teaming Framework for Large Language Model Security Assessment: A Comprehensive Attack Generation and Detection System [4.864011355064205]
This paper introduces an automated red-teaming framework that generates, executes, and evaluates adversarial prompts to uncover security vulnerabilities in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our framework integrates meta-prompting-based attack synthesis, multi-modal vulnerability detection, and standardized evaluation protocols spanning six major threat categories.<n> Experiments on the GPT-OSS-20B model reveal 47 distinct vulnerabilities, including 21 high-severity and 12 novel attack patterns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-21T19:12:44Z) - Demystifying deep search: a holistic evaluation with hint-free multi-hop questions and factorised metrics [89.1999907891494]
We present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox.<n>Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures.<n>We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-01T07:59:03Z) - MAVUL: Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection via Contextual Reasoning and Interactive Refinement [9.377934769326416]
MAVUL is a novel multi-agent vulnerability detection system that integrates contextual reasoning and interactive refinement.<n>We show MAVUL significantly outperforms existing multi-agent systems with over 62% higher pairwise accuracy and single-agent systems with over 600% higher average performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-30T22:21:43Z) - DiffuGuard: How Intrinsic Safety is Lost and Found in Diffusion Large Language Models [50.21378052667732]
We conduct an in-depth analysis of dLLM vulnerabilities to jailbreak attacks across two distinct dimensions: intra-step and inter-step dynamics.<n>We propose DiffuGuard, a training-free defense framework that addresses vulnerabilities through a dual-stage approach.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-29T05:17:10Z) - VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z) - OmniEAR: Benchmarking Agent Reasoning in Embodied Tasks [52.87238755666243]
We present OmniEAR, a framework for evaluating how language models reason about physical interactions, tool usage, and multi-agent coordination in embodied tasks.<n>We model continuous physical properties and complex spatial relationships across 1,500 scenarios spanning household and industrial domains.<n>Our systematic evaluation reveals severe performance degradation when models must reason from constraints.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-07T17:54:15Z) - MOS: Towards Effective Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection through Mixture-of-Experts Tuning of Large Language Models [16.16186929130931]
Smart contract vulnerabilities pose significant security risks to blockchain systems.<n>We propose a smart contract vulnerability detection framework based on mixture-of-experts tuning (MOE-Tuning) of large language models.<n> Experiments show that MOS significantly outperforms existing methods with average improvements of 6.32% in F1 score and 4.80% in accuracy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-16T16:33:53Z) - Lie Detector: Unified Backdoor Detection via Cross-Examination Framework [68.45399098884364]
We propose a unified backdoor detection framework in the semi-honest setting.<n>Our method achieves superior detection performance, improving accuracy by 5.4%, 1.6%, and 11.9% over SoTA baselines.<n> Notably, it is the first to effectively detect backdoors in multimodal large language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-21T06:12:06Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.