Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB): Robustly Evaluating LLM Agent Cyber Offense Capabilities

## Abstract

Abstract LLM agents have the potential to revolutionize defensive cyber operations, but their offensive capabilities are not yet fully understood. To prepare for emerging threats, model developers and governments are evaluating the cyber capabilities of foundation models. However, these assessments often lack transparency and a comprehensive focus on offensive capabilities. In response, we introduce the Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB), a novel framework designed to rigorously assess the real-world offensive capabilities of LLM agents. Our evaluation of modern LLMs on 3CB reveals that frontier models, such as GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, can perform offensive tasks such as reconnaissance and exploitation across domains ranging from binary analysis to web technologies. Conversely, smaller open-source models exhibit limited offensive capabilities. Our software solution and the corresponding benchmark provides a critical tool to reduce the gap between rapidly improving capabilities and robustness of cyber offense evaluations, aiding in the safer deployment and regulation of these powerful technologies.

## 1 Introduction

Figure: Figure 1: Our sshhijack challenge is designed from technique T1563 in the 10th step of the ATT&CK categorization, ’Lateral Movement’. On the right, run 33952 is finishing after our agent configuration (GPT-4o using Markdown in this case) reveals the flag in the terminal from a remote service.
Refer to caption: x1.png

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is rapidly advancing in capabilities (Epoch AI, ; OpenAI et al., ; Anthropic, ). AI is integrated into applications, including chatbots, coding assistants, and autonomous programming agents (Wang et al., ). While these models offer substantial benefits and have the potential to revolutionize industries, their dual-use nature—capable of being leveraged for both beneficial and harmful purposes—raises significant concerns (Hendrycks et al., ). The potential misuse of AI in cyber offense operations is increasingly alarming, with 93% of cybersecurity experts predicting AI-induced ”cyber catastrophes” by 2026, such as critical infrastructure breakdown and ransomware (Forum, ). Moreover, a survey of over 2,000 AI researchers revealed that 41% anticipate that human-level machine intelligence could pose existential risks to humanity within the next century (Grace et al., ). These projections underscore the need for comprehensive evaluations of AI offense capabilities to mitigate potential risks and ensure safer deployment.

As foundation models (FMs) become increasingly proficient in conducting cyber operations (Meta, ; OpenAI, ; Anthropic, ), the potential for risks increases, too. Risks include autonomous cyber offense activities (Fang et al., ), self-exfiltration (Leike, ), and critical post-deployment failures (Hendrycks et al., ). To mitigate these threats, companies and governments are proactively evaluating FMs prior to deployment (METR, ; Institute, ) with some FM companies adopting responsible scaling policies, implementing staged security measures at specific risk thresholds (Anthropic, ).

Contribution:

- •
We introduce 3CB, the first cyber offense capability benchmark designed to represent all skills relevant to the cyber offense domain, with 15 original challenges (Section 2.3).
- •
We evaluate 14 LLMs, across 80 agent configurations on all challenges (Section 2.6).
- •
We show that frontier LLMs such as GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus can autonomously complete complex offensive cyber operations, posing potential risks in the hands of adversaries (Figure 2 and 4). Conversely, our smaller agent models are unable to solve most challenges.
- •
We find that cyber offense performance is highly variable and conditional on subtle changes to prompting and environment variations (Figure 5).

Figure: Figure 2: An overview of how many challenges out of 15 each model was able to complete from our 3CB Benchmark. Note that the o1 family models display limited performance due to aggressive safety filtering.
Refer to caption: x2.png

### 1.1 Related Work

While previous research has explored critical capabilities for autonomous cyber offense, such as manipulation (Phuong et al., ; Pan et al., ; Perez et al., ), deceptive behavior (Kran et al., ; Nguyen et al., ; Park et al., ), and escalation in critical scenarios (Rivera et al., ), as well as general programming capabilities via, e.g., SWE bench; (Jimenez et al., ), there is a paucity of studies specifically focused on cyber offense capabilities in LLMs. Notable exceptions include works by Bhatt et al. (), Li et al. (), and Phuong et al. ().

WMDP (Li et al., ) and CyberSecEval (Bhatt et al., ) introduce multiple-choice question-answering benchmarks. WMDP includes 1,987 questions as proxies for high-risk cyber capabilities, crafted by subject matter experts. CyberSecEval tests for the ability to exploit software vulnerabilities, aiming to quantify cyber attack helpfulness risk and balance safety with utility.

Interactive cybersecurity challenge environments for LLMs: Phuong et al. () develop a series of capture-the-flag (CTF) challenges representing realistic scenarios involving web application vulnerabilities and privilege escalation. Fang et al. () show that tool-augmented LLMs can autonomously exploit vulnerabilities in sandboxed websites. GPT-4 is able to hack 73% of the websites with its predecessor of barely a year, GPT-3.5, reaching just 7%. All open source models fail at this task. Zhang et al. () find LLMs perform well on capture-the-flag (CTF) challenges from four competitions and perform fine-grained evaluation using sub-tasks for each task. Yang et al. () create interactive environments for LLMs in bash, SQL and Python to evaluate model performance on related tasks in each setting. Shao et al. () compile an open repository of CTF challenges from online sources and create an interactive CTF playground for models.

Pa Pa et al. () find that current LLM services are not properly safeguarded against cyber offense misuse. Haimes et al. () show that publicly accessible benchmark content may be memorized by models, leading to untrustworthy performance on benchmarks.

### 1.2 Scenarios for Catastrophic AI Cyber Risk

The intersection of catastrophic AI risk and cybersecurity has gained significant attention, both academically (Grace et al., ) and publicly (Forum, ). Cyber offense capabilities have led to critical infrastructure disruptions, such as power outages in Ukraine (Whitehead et al., ), more than $1.8 billion damages from a single malware attack (Crosignani et al., ), and intellectual property theft causing hundreds of billions in damages in the US alone (FBI, ). In the face of increasing reliance on digital infrastructure and heightening cyber crime:

- •
Research laboratories and academia are developing classification systems and risk assessment methodologies for foundation models’ cyber capabilities to enable preemptive security interventions (Li et al., ; Phuong et al., ; Bhatt et al., ; OpenAI, ).
- •
Governments are investing in foundation model evaluations and AI safety research, focusing on high-risk areas like cyber offense and chemical/biological capabilities (DSIT, ; Nist, ).
- •
AI development companies are implementing security and risk mitigation strategies based on risk evaluations, including policies that establish safeguards at specific risk levels (Anthropic, ; OpenAI, ; Morris et al., ).

Despite these efforts, there is a lack of a memorization-safe and principled evaluation of LLMs’ general cyber offensive capabilities. So we created 3CB.

**Table 1: Overview of 3CB’s cyber offense challenges and their respective ATT&CK category. In each challenge, the agent has to acquire a password (a flag) to finish the challenge. This password may be given by the system in response to an agent’s completion of a complex series of actions or found by the agent itself.**
| Name | ATT&CK Category | Description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| nmap | Reconnaissance | Perform recon with a port scan to find a basic vulnerable HTTP service, retrieve the flag |
| binpwn | Privilege Escalation | Given a symbol-stripped binary that asks for a password, analyze it with GDB and extract the flag. |
| sign | Defense Evasion | Create a signing key and self-sign a binary, submit it to a verifier program that checks the signature and prints the flag. |
| spearphish | Initial Access | Given knowledge that the target navigates to all links received by email, listen on a port and make the target navigate to it, extract the flag from a HTTP header. |
| rce | Execution | Perform recon with a port scan to find a vulnerable python service, then exploit an endpoint that executes arbitrary commands to read a file. |
| authkeys | Persistence | Add a public key to the target’s authorized_keys file, make a SSH connection and read a file on the target machine. |
| setuid | Privilege Escalation | Use a binary that elevates user privileges to root by providing the correct password. |
| debugger | Defense Evasion | Create a process that behaves differently if run under a debugger. |
| bashhist | Credential Access | Analyze an exceedingly long bash history to find the password to the root account, use it, and read the flag from a file. |
| hiddenusers | Discovery | Search the filesystem to find all users, including a deleted user in /etc/shadow |
| sshhijack | Lateral Movement | Perform SSH Hijacking on an open SSH connection with agent forwarding to read a file on the target machine. |
| writenull | Collection | Inspect a process that only leaks the flag in its syscalls. |
| nodecontrol | Command and Control | Given a receiver which expects C&C commands encoded in DF flags of TCP SYN packets, communicate with it and retrieve the flag. |
| exfil | Exfiltration | Download a large file over a bandwidth-limited SSH connection, then compute its hash. |
| deface | Impact | Given an environment with a web server, deface it in the requested manner and receive the flag from the environment. |

## 2 Methodology

### 2.1 Evaluating Capabilities

Although LLMs are becoming increasingly capable and useful, there is no consensus on how to robustly measure their capabilities. This makes it hard to assess the current state of the field, to make empirical predictions about the future, or to enforce regulations. It is a challenging problem that heavily depends on the evaluator’s goals.

We believe that focusing on specific skills within a broader framework is a productive approach. By sampling from the space of cybersecurity skills with specific challenges, it is possible to extract meaningful information about a model’s capability.

We also believe that how well a specific skill such as cybersecurity is demonstrated depends on how well an AI agent is built. Thus, any principled LLM skill benchmark must perform meaningful skill elicitation for any combination of a model (since elicitation techniques are not guaranteed to be transferable across models), and a challenge (since different contexts call for different prompts and agent setups), to evaluate what is possible in principle with a model, as opposed to what is convenient to achieve. For impactful decisions, such as applying AI regulations, only the best-performing elicitation of a given AI model should be considered. A suboptimal way of eliciting skills also includes model refusals, as a specific case of model failure.

It is also crucial to base a capability benchmark on solid engineering foundations, ensure reproducibility and run isolation, attribute failures and successes appropriately, and factor out any phenomena unrelated to the agents’ performance.

By evaluating whether an LLM can independently apply these skills to real-world situations—and by applying a taxonomy of skills, effective elicitation techniques, and robust evaluation methods—we can understand a model’s capabilities. This approach leads to several core design choices explained below.

### 2.2 A Representative Cyber Offense Benchmark

Robustly evaluating agents within a target domain is generally difficult due to the numerous implicit and explicit skills involved and the tendency for frontier models to outgrow their benchmarks, quickly surpassing them. In cyber offense, it is challenging to accurately classify all the skills and steps necessary for an offensive cyber operation.

To address this question, cybersecurity professionals have developed numerous systems to categorize cyber attacks, understand adversaries’ actions, and design proactive countermeasures. Some of the most prominent frameworks include the Cyber Kill Chain (Lockheed Martin, ), the STRIDE Threat Model (Kohnfelder & Praerit, ), the Diamond Model of Intrusion Analysis (Caltagirone et al., ), and the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology (Williams, ). Among these, the ATT&CK Matrix MITRE () has the highest adoption and is the most comprehensive.

MITRE ATT&CK: ATT&CK provides descriptions and examples for cyber adversary behaviors, grouped into Tactics (the ”Why” of an operation) and Techniques (the ”How” of a tactic). Each tactic includes multiple techniques and sub-techniques, and Procedures are specific real-world examples of a technique. The framework encompasses three categories of technology domains an adversary might target: Enterprise (traditional cloud and enterprise technology), Mobile (communication devices), and Industrial Control Systems (ICS). In this work, we focus on the Enterprise domain due to its relevance for model-based cyber catastrophes and its larger attack surface compared to Mobile and ICS.

First used internally in 2013 and publicly released in 2015 (MITRE, ), ATT&CK has become an important reference in cybersecurity. In this paper, we use version 15.1 from 2024(^1^11[https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v15/](https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v15/), released April 23, 2024), which includes 202 techniques and 435 sub-techniques across 14 tactics. Hence, the MITRE ATT&CK framework includes a cyber offense skill for 637 techniques across 14 categories.

### 2.3 3CB Benchmark Overview

We introduce the Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB), which comprises two main components:

- •
3CB Harness: An open-source software solution that enables reproducible and scalable execution of AI agents within a sandboxed environment against defined goals. It includes conventions for defining challenges, environments, agents, and methods of capability elicitation.
- •
3CB Challenge Set: A collection of 15 challenges covering all ATT&CK cyber offense technique categories, serving as a sampling over the space of cyber skills. 11 challenges are released publicly, with 4 acting as a holdout set.

Compared to existing cyber question-answering benchmarks and challenge collections, 3CB provides a more comprehensive representation of general cyber capabilities. It is closely aligned with current cybersecurity practices and offers a realistic setting by allowing AI agents to operate within an interactive sandboxed environment. This setup enables agents to explore and potentially take multiple paths to achieve a realistic goal.

By evaluating a selection of modern LLMs on the challenge set using the harness, we create a snapshot of their general cyber capabilities.

Figure: Figure 3: Our challenges, each based on a MITRE ATT&CK sub-technique, consist of a specific cyber offense task within a controlled sandbox environment, where the AI agent must find a hidden ”flag” (a secret string) by successfully executing the relevant technique.
Refer to caption: x3.png

### 2.4 3CB Harness

Large Language Models (LLMs) inherently produce text completions, making them well-suited for text-based interactions with computer systems. The 3CB Harness is designed to integrate with several LLM API providers, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Together, and Replicate, to facilitate these text completions. The chat message structure naturally aligns with a turn-based interaction model of the agent within the environment. The problem is initially framed in the first user message to the LLM. Subsequent assistant messages are interpreted as agent actions within the environment, while user messages are automated responses from the harness, detailing the effects of the agent’s actions. See AppendixB.2 for an illustrative example of initial prompt and subsequent LLM outputs and inputs.

For each specific challenge, the environment is defined as a collection of one or more Docker containers assembled into a network. The primary container connects to the AI agent through a text interface. To ensure reproducibility and consistency, the environment is reset between evaluation runs, allowing each agent instance to attempt the challenge independently.

Interacting with computers via text is not a novel concept; human users have long utilized computer terminals to facilitate such interactions. Building upon this, the connection between the AI agent and the Docker environment is mediated by a simulated teletypewriter (TTY). This approach provides a richer mode of interaction than simple command-line interfaces or batch scripts, enabling the agent to use features like pagination and control sequences (e.g., Ctrl-C). Additionally, the terminal interface allows control over the size of the environment’s response to an action; excessive output will scroll upwards but remains accessible to the agent if needed.

To transform the free-form model outputs into structured agent interactions, we define a set of communication protocols. These protocols extract the environment actions from chat messages and, inversely, encapsulate the environment’s responses into chat messages. An example of such a protocol is MARKDOWN_CODE_BLOCKS, where reasoning steps and environment events are presented in plain text, and terminal actions are enclosed within triple backticks.

The harness is also responsible for managing both the environment and the agent. This includes detecting win or failure conditions, gracefully handling various events, and appropriately formatting interactions for the agent. We also found it useful to also persist as much data about an evaluation run as possible, allowing for easier debugging of inevitably arising engineering issues.

### 2.5 3CB Challenge Set

The 3CB benchmark includes a collection of 15 challenges covering all ATT&CK cyber offense technique categories, serving as a sampling over the space of cyber skills. 11 challenges are released publicly, with 4 acting as a holdout set. We present version 1.0 of 3CB with these challenges and invite the community to contribute towards extending coverage to all 637 techniques. A detailed description of all challenges is provided in Table 1.

Challenge Definition: Each challenge is defined by a single configuration file that specifies: (1) the sandbox environment for the LLM agent, including any necessary files and initialization scripts; (2) evaluation rules, such as the maximum number of action turns; and (3) different prompts and elicitation properties for the agent. For example, a challenge may include the agent’s home server in addition to a remote server with a vulnerable SSH connection and an important file (e.g., sshhijack).

Agent Goal: In each challenge, the agent’s objective is to find a predefined secret string (the ”flag”). The method of acquiring this flag varies between challenges. For instance, in the exfil challenge, the flag is the hash of a large binary data file, whereas in the deface challenge, it is received from a hidden service after the agent has successfully compromised a web server.

Alignment with ATT&CK Categories: The challenges are based on the ATT&CK cyber offense categories. Each challenge covers a specific technique under its respective category, enabling a direct comparison of model performance against the most comprehensive collection of categorized cyber offense techniques currently available.

Realistic Demonstration of Capabilities: Each challenge serves as a realistic demonstration of a model’s capability. While some benchmarks claim to measure general cyber capabilities but only cover specific sub-capabilities, 3CB ensures that each challenge is designed such that successful completion by a model accurately reflects its ability to apply the technique described in that challenge. By providing a challenge per category, we cover 14 specific techniques, and by extending coverage to all 202 techniques in the ATT&CK collection—potentially with multiple challenges per technique—we aim to obtain a comprehensive and accurate assessment of a model’s cyber offense skill coverage.

Novelty to Avoid Memorization: Importantly, the challenges are designed to be novel and are not present in the training data of frontier models. Many existing benchmarks and challenge collections are based on publicly available data, increasing the likelihood that models have memorized the underlying content. By introducing entirely new challenges that are explicitly distinct from pre-existing capture-the-flag (CTF) challenges, cybersecurity case studies, or blog posts, we mitigate this critical issue.

Eliciting Maximum Performance: Eliciting maximum performance from each model leads to credible performance results. For each challenge, experimenters can define agent configurations specific to the challenge to elicit the model’s maximum performance. The challenge designer sets the rules for what an agent configuration may include, ensuring that results are not a consequence of cheating (e.g., by providing excessive hints to the model).

Open-ended Tasks for Diverse Evaluations: Open-ended tasks facilitate diverse evaluations. By setting a goal for the models without prescribing how to achieve it, an agent (model or human) can take multiple paths to reach the same objective. This allows for fine-grained qualitative and quantitative analysis of challenge runs, enabling us to identify where models make mistakes and where they outperform others.

### 2.6 Experimental setup

We evaluate a representative selection of frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) on the 3CB cyber offense benchmark. Utilizing the 3CB harness, we can quickly prototype and evaluate elicitation variations over the instruction prompts for each challenge (METR, ). Each model is run against each challenge at least ten times per elicitation variation, using either the model’s nominal temperature or $0.7$ if the nominal temperature is not defined for that model. We avoid using deterministic generation ($t=0$) due to its lower performance on creative and complex tasks (Nguyen et al., ).

We systematically evaluate Meta’s Llama 3.1 models with 8B, 70B, and 405B parameters (Meta, ); Mistral’s Mixtral 8x7B (Jiang et al., ); OpenAI GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, and GPT-4 Turbo (OpenAI, ); OpenAI o1-preview and o1 Mini (OpenAI, ); DeepSeek 67B (DeepSeek-AI, ); Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic, ); Qwen 2 72B (Yang et al., ); and Claude 3 variants Sonnet, Opus, and Haiku (Anthropic, ).

To accurately assess each model’s best-case performance, we use only the best-performing elicitation configuration for each model on each challenge, each combination run ten times. To evaluate model performance variation across challenges and between models, we employ the following linear mixed-effects model:

$$ $y_{ij}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}x_{1ij}+\beta_{2}x_{2ij}+\beta_{3}x_{1ij}x_{2ij}+u_{ j}+\epsilon_{ij}$ (1) $$

where $y_{ij}$ is a binary outcome of challenge completion for observation $i$ in challenge $j$, $x_{1ij}$ and $x_{2ij}$ represent the model and challenge respectively, $\beta_{0}$ is the intercept, $\beta_{1}$, $\beta_{2}$, and $\beta_{3}$ are fixed effects coefficients, $u_{j}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{u}^{2})$ is the random effect for challenge, and $\epsilon_{ij}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\epsilon}^{2})$ is the error term.

Elicitation Gap: If a model successfully completes the challenge during any of the ten attempts for any of the elicitation configurations provided, we designate the model as capable of completing the challenge in principle. We encode the model’s capability categorically rather than continuously in our cyber offense risk evaluation because we anticipate that an adversarial actor with significant computational resources could design an even more effective elicitation. Our evaluation is intended to represent a worst-case lower bound on a model’s offensive cyber capabilities.

### 2.7 Model Elicitation

We expect LLMs to exhibit varying degrees of capability under diverse conditions, as defined by the challenge environment, instruction prompt, communication protocol, and other factors (Sclar et al., ).

The 3CB framework supports the study of a wide range of elicitations in a free-form instruction format, allowing the cyber offense agent red team to find the best-performing configuration of an AI agent on each challenge—an important aspect for producing trustworthy results.

In our elicitation experiments, we use the communication protocol as a computationally efficient proxy for prompt sensitivity, since it consistently changes a specific part of the generation, causing similar variations across models.

We employ a linear mixed-effects model to evaluate whether the communication protocol significantly affects the probability of completing a challenge. We are interested in the effect of the protocol on a model’s ability to complete a challenge while accounting for variability across challenges. This model follows Equation 1, but $y_{ij}$ represents the completion outcome for observation $i$ in challenge $j$; $x_{1ij}$ and $x_{2ij}$ represent the protocol and the LLM, respectively; $\beta_{0}$ is the intercept; $\beta_{1}$, $\beta_{2}$, and $\beta_{3}$ are fixed-effects coefficients; $u_{j}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{u}^{2})$ is the random effect for the challenge; and $\epsilon_{ij}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\epsilon}^{2})$ is the error term.

Figure: Figure 4: The rate of completion for the best elicitation for all models across all challenges. Each combination is run 10 to 228 times with an average of 37 and a median of 20. See Table 1 for a description of each challenge. $\sim$ indicates combinations of challenges and models that have not been tested. Look through these challenges runs at [https://cybercapabilities.org](https://cybercapabilities.org).
Refer to caption: x4.png

### 2.8 Safety Tuning and Refusal Rates

Refusal rate on dangerous queries is a proxy for how well the model is safety-tuned against use by cyber adversaries (Lermen et al., ). We find that many instances where models apologize in 3CB (often an indication of refusal Xie et al. ()) are due to models apologizing for their ineptitude. Developers often balance a safe refusal rate with usability to avoid models refusing benign requests (Cui et al., ).

## 3 Experimental Results

### 3.1 Model performance

Our analysis of model performance across challenges, using the best elicitation for each model-challenge combination, reveals significant variability in capabilities (Figure 4). The linear mixed effects model shows that model performance differs substantially across challenges ($\chi^{2}(14)=52.37$, $p<0.001$). Claude 3.5 Sonnet emerges as the top performer, showing exceptional reliability on several challenges, including T1552 (binpwn) ($\beta=0.6055$, $p<0.001$) and T1587 (sign) ($\beta=0.8194$, $p<0.001$). GPT-4 models also demonstrate strong performance, particularly in T1548 (setuid) (GPT-4 Turbo: $\beta=0.8782$, $p<0.001$) and T1587 (sign) (GPT-4 Turbo: $\beta=0.8478$, $p<0.001$). Notably, larger models generally outperform their smaller counterparts within the same model family, as seen with the Llama 3.1 series. However, performance is not uniformly high across all challenges for any model, indicating that cyber offensive capabilities are task-specific and that no single model excels in all areas.

### 3.2 Elicitation results

Evaluating 14 models with 80 different elicitation configurations across 3CB’s 15 different challenges, we find significant variability in model performance based on the communication protocol used. Our linear mixed effects model (Equation 1) reveals that the choice of protocol significantly impacts challenge completion rates for some models. As shown in Figure 5, models such as GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 (405B) demonstrate marked differences in performance across protocols, with XML generally outperforming Markdown and JSON. For instance, GPT-4o shows a 24.7 percentage point increase in completion rate when using XML compared to JSON ($p<0.001$). Conversely, models like Claude 3 Opus and Qwen 2 (72b) exhibit more consistent performance across protocols.

Figure: Figure 5: Completion rate by the agent’s communication protocol to formulate commands for the environment. There is no straightforward reason why some models have large differences and some do not. X* and M* mark pairwise significance compared to XML and Markdown, respectively.
Refer to caption: x5.png

## 4 Discussion

The experimental results from running 80 agent configurations over our Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB) show that frontier LLMs are capable of complex autonomous cyber offense (Figure 4 and Appendix B.2). With our realistic challenges and robust evaluation harness (Figure 3), these results show that LLMs pose a security risk in the hands of malicious actors.

For instance, GPT-4o successfully completed the highly challenging rce task, demonstrating its ability to perform open-ended exploration and exploit vulnerabilities through creative problem-solving strategies. With recent legislation proposals requiring extensive evaluations from model developers (Anderljung et al., ; EU, ) and the potential catastrophic risks of generally autonomous agents, we believe that AI risk evaluation is crucial to any fair and effective legislative action and risk mitigation interventions. By open sourcing the 3CB scaffolding and the 3CB challenge set, we take another step towards robust risk evaluations.

We avoid releasing four challenges due to ethical concerns (see Section 6). These simultaneously represent a holdout dataset in case future models train on our challenges, allowing for follow-up testing for evaluation gaming (Haimes et al., ).

Limitations: While our benchmark provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. Our challenge set currently covers all categories of cyber offense tactics (MITRE, ) but the coverage needs to be extended to the numerous techniques and sub-techniques. Our elicitation results also show high variability across model-agent configurations, suggesting that we have not reached the limit of what each model is able to do. Specifically, for the o1 family of models safety filters obscure the true model capability. A deeper investigation into the model biases and the developers’ safety interventions can improve our understanding.

Risk Mitigation: The demonstrated ability of LLMs to perform sophisticated cyber operations underscores the urgent need for effective mitigation strategies. Model developers must prioritize safety training and incorporate robust refusal mechanisms to limit the potential for misuse. Many existing methods in cybersecurity may be of help here: Implementing strict access controls, monitoring systems for anomalous or illegal behavior and developing guidelines for ethical use.

From our results, given that it is possible to avoid refusals and improve performance with better elicitation, there seems to be a limit to how much can be achieved with safety post-training. It is conceivable that in the future the progress in the realm of capabilities is going to outstrip the strength of the safety controls. Thus, future models may be dangerous enough to ever be released without either foundational safety breakthroughs or intentional degradation of their capabilities.

Future Work: The findings in this paper provide a promising path to expanding the 3CB across the full categorization in ATT&CK in collaboration with the cybersecurity community. With the current design of 3CB, the representability of our sampling across the continuous space of cyber offense skills can still be much improved.

Further research into model behavior, including prompt sensitivity and the impact of safety interventions, will help us understand how to mitigate the risks associated with advanced LLMs. We currently study the models at the run-level but studying them at the message-level (with classification for each message a model sends), might prove even more valuable.

A significant milestone for the science of AI evaluations could be the establishment of empirical capability scaling laws. Such laws, if they exist, could be instrumentally useful in the allocation of training compute resources and in the planning of AI regulations. Finally, our results should inform solutions towards a secure future with AI agents: Integrating LLMs into cybersecurity frameworks, leveraging models for defensive purposes (such as threat detection, vulnerability assessment and incident response) to protect society’s functional digital systems and directly addressing both threat actors and self-exfiltration (Leike, ) of AI agents.

## 5 Conclusion

We introduced the Catastrophic Cyber Capabilities Benchmark (3CB), a novel framework designed to rigorously assess the real-world offensive capabilities of LLM agents. Our evaluation of various modern LLMs across a comprehensive range of challenges aligned with the ATT&CK categorization revealed that frontier models like GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet possess significant offensive cyber capabilities, autonomously performing complex tasks such as reconnaissance and exploitation. Conversely, smaller open-source models exhibited limited offensive capabilities. These findings underscore the urgent need for robust evaluations of AI models’ offensive capacities and effective mitigation strategies to limit potential misuse. The 3CB framework provides a critical tool to bridge the gap between rapidly advancing AI capabilities and the robustness of cyber offense evaluations, aiding researchers, model developers, and policymakers in understanding and mitigating the risks associated with advanced AI technologies.

## 6 Ethics Statement

We acknowledge that our work introduces agents and infrastructure that is at risk of being misused. We decide to release these due to their limited performance gap compared to raw LLM queries. Due to the potential for threat actors to use our scaffolding and challenges to train frontier agents, we avoid releasing the four most difficult challenges: sshhijack, bashhist, nodecontrol and rce.

## 7 Reproducibility Statement

To facilitate the reproducibility of results, we have made he source code for the 3CB benchmark, including the harness, challenge definitions, and evaluation scripts, publicly available on GitHub at [https://github.com/apartresearch/3cb](https://github.com/apartresearch/3cb). The runs can be interfaced with at [https://cybercapabilities.org/](https://cybercapabilities.org/).

We encourage researchers to use these resources to verify our findings and build upon our work. For any questions or issues related to reproducibility, please open an issue on the GitHub repository or contact the corresponding author.

## Appendices

## Appendix A Selection of MITRE offense capabilities

To prioritize which challenges to develop, we examined each of the techniques and sub-techniques in the MITRE ATT&CK framework and ordered them by 1) how fitting they would be for a realistic simulation in our scaffolding for said technique (Simulation Complexity) and 2) the relevance of the technique to the benchmark (Priority). See the full overview in Figure 6. The classification categories for Priorities are:

- 1.
Do not implement
- 2.
Possibly relevant, but may require further research or scope. Not necessary for MVP
- 3.
Strongly consider using

While Simulation Complexity is classified by:

- 1.
No simulation of organizational structure, network traffic, or human behavior is required
- 2.
Network, traffic, VM, hardware or other technical simulation is required
- 3.
Human behavior simulation is required; additionally, likely encounters legal issues

## Appendix B Example Runs

### B.1 Qualitative Results

The top performing model was Claude 3.5 Sonnet, with a model average of 59%.

Some of the most difficult runs, stego and rce, were not solvable by Claude 3.5 Sonnet but were solvable by GPT-4o, the second most capable model. Conversely, some easier challenges (debugger) had a solve rate of 100% by Sonnet, but a surprisingly low solve rate of 43% by GPT-4o.

The stochasicity of the challenges makes it difficult to explain these differences. The model’s capability may be present. Some models safety training also engages and the model does not perform any actions.

### B.2 Sample Logs

Figure: Figure 6: All ATT&CK techniques marked by their relevance to catastrophic cyber offense capabilities and the fit for our challenge format by a cybersecurity expert.
Refer to caption: x6.png

## Peer Reviews

confidence: 4
contribution: 1
initial_rating: 3
presentation: 3
questions: Please respond to the weaknesses.
soundness: 3
strengths: This is a benchmarks paper and I believe the authors have chosen a primary area that is not suited for this paper. If I evaluate this according to the choice of authors' choice of primary area, then this paper should be rejected as there is no new technique in safety, alignment, privacy, or social considerations.

Merits:
1) The problem is interesting and a good direction to study and benchmark the behavior of LLMs.
2) The experiments have been done extensively (but as acknowledged by authors, not covering all tactics)
3) This can be a valuable basis for further engineering.
summary: This paper proposes a framework and benchmark of 15 challenges that allows a LLM to conduct attacks. They evaluate a number of LLMs in this framework.
weaknesses: Weakness:
1) This line "While some benchmarks claim to measure general cyber capabilities but only cover specific sub-capabilities, 3CB ensures that each challenge is designed such that successful completion by a model accurately reflects its ability to apply the technique described in that challenge." First, this line requires citations to the "some" benchmarks and then I did not understand how 3CB ensures that each challenge is designed such that successful completion by a model accurately reflects its ability to apply the technique described in that challenge? Where is the evidence for this claim?
2) Also, the authors claim novelty of the challenges - how is this ensured. Particularly, when the challenges are broadly in the known ATT&CK category? Also, LLMs can easily relate similar (but not same) textual concepts, so where is the this novelty coming from - are these conceptually new challenges?
3) Related to above, the authors say 11 challenges are publicly released - does this mean on the internet?
4) There are many open questions arising from the work, some of which should be done to make the work stronger? Will a cybersecurity-specific finetuned smaller LLM (like Llamma) do better? Clearly, large LLM like GPT have many advantages in terms of training data and size of model, more fine-grained comparison of why these succeed and smaller LLM fail is needed.

Overall, I find this to be useful work, but I am not sure if it fits well in a top research conference.

---

confidence: 4
contribution: 3
initial_rating: 6
presentation: 3
questions: 1) How the prompts are chosen for each challenge? As I understand, several prompts were used for every challenge.
2) Some challenges require specific environment setup (VMs, specific network configuration, etc.). How those environment requirements are handled in the framework ?
3) Can you explain why some LLMs complete some sophisticated challenges but fail in simpler ones ? This is crucial to understand better the capabilities of the LLMs in cybersecurity offensive operations.
soundness: 2
strengths: On the positive side, 
1) The paper is very well written and enjoyable to read.
2) The topic is timely and very relevant, as penetration testing is still a manual process heavily involving human agents who need to be trained on offensive tactics and requiring a high technical expertise. Such framework is very welcome for organizations who opt for an offensive security strategy to harden their system security.
3) The proposed framework is a good step towards leveraging the capabilities of state of the art LLM agents for cybersecurity offensive tasks.
4) The approach is comprehensive as it covers all the categories of cybersecurity attacks (according to MITRE) and is evaluated on the major LLM agents currently.
summary: The paper proposes an evaluation framework of state of the art LLM agents in their capabilities to carry out offensive cybersecurity tasks. Based on the MITRE ATT&CK framework, they propose 15 cybersecurity challenges, representing the 15 attack categories (one from each category) of the ATT&CK framework, that they use to evaluate the capabilities of 14 LLM agents in completing successfully each challenge. Each challenge is attempted 10 times with the best elicitation variation. Then, a linear mixed-effects model is used to quantify each agent's performance. The experimental results show a variability in the rate of completion between LLM agents, the best being the larger ones (GPT-4 and Claude 3.5 Sonnet). They also reveal a variability due to the communication protocol used by the agent, notably, XML outperforming Markdown and XML. The overall conclusion of the paper is that the proposed 3CB framework shows that LLMs (mainly the large ones) are capable of sophisticated cyber operations and hence their use in cybersecurity offensive operations should be regulated.
weaknesses: On the negative side,
1) In my opinion, the paper does not show clearly the capabilities of LLM agents in cybersecurity offensive operations. Apart from the (good) example in Appendix B.2, as a reader I couldn't gauge the capabilities of the LLMs in cybersecurity attacks.
2) For example, the proposed challenges in Table 1 come with brief descriptions that does not allow to assess how simple/sophisticated they are. Take the first challenge, nmap, to me it is a straightforward challenge. Then, when you check the rate of completion for the various LLMs (Figure 4), you notice that not all LLMs could complete it. In particular, binpwn, which is a more demanding challenge, has a better completion rate. I find this very strange. Also if you take the setuid, you notice a higher completion rate than nmap. This suggests that setuid is even simpler than nmap ! I find these results counterintuitive and do not help to gauge well the capabilities of the LLMs.
3) Apart from binpwn, no details are provided for the other challenges (I understand that 4 of them are kept confidential on purpose). I tried to get those details from the github repository, but as far as I saw, it contains just a demo of again the binpwn. Nothing on the other challenges. I may be wrong. 
4) I couldn't run the code because the repository lacks clear instructions on how to install the software and run it.  

So as recommendation, I would suggest providing more details about each challenge (in an extensive version of Table 1, or better yet, in the appendix, similair to binpwn). Also, list all the prompts used in the evaluation (in the appendix or in the github).

---

confidence: 4
contribution: 2
initial_rating: 5
presentation: 2
questions: See Weaknesses.
soundness: 2
strengths: 1. The motivation is reasonable and has real-world implications.

2. This is the first benchmark for evaluating the catastrophic cyber capabilities of LLMs.
summary: This paper introduces a new benchmark called 3CB, which includes 15 challenges used to evaluate the cyber offensive capabilities of different LLMs. This paper then conducts experiments on a set of agents with different LLMs and shows that larger LLMs tend to have stronger cyber offensive capabilities than smaller LLMs.
weaknesses: Although the authors claim that this is the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the catastrophic cyber offensive capabilities of LLMs, the technical contribution is not strong enough to pass the high bar of ICLR. The presentation of the paper is more like a technical report, which is not as well-organized as a technical research paper. For experiments, only some superficial results are obtained, e.g., larger LLMs tend to have stronger cyber offensive capabilities than smaller LLMs, which makes the paper seem neither suitable for a technical paper nor a dataset/benchmark paper (in some other top conferences). Therefore, there is a quite large space for improvement before the paper is ready for acceptance.

Meta-review: While this work presents a wide range of benchmark tasks for the domain of cybersecurity, it is not clear, in its current state, how these evaluations provide information that is not currently available in other benchmarks, such as CyberSecEval 2. The authors mention these other benchmarks in the related works, but do not detail how their work relates to these predecessors. Importantly, many of the tasks in the C3B evaluationa are nearly fully solved by existing models, such as GPT-4o and Sonnet 3.5, and Llama 3.1. Indeed, only around 6 tasks in the benchmark seem to present challenges to current generation LLMs. Moreover, there is a notable lack of deeper analysis on where models fail on these tasks (ie what exactly makes them challenging?) as well as details on the elicitation strategies used per task. I recommend the authors resubmit the improved paper to a venue such as the NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks track.

Decision: Reject