The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Empirical Evaluation of LLMs for Solving Offensive Security Challenges
Abstract
Capture The Flag (CTF) challenges are puzzles related to computer security scenarios. With the advent of large language models (LLMs), more and more CTF participants are using LLMs to understand and solve the challenges. However, so far no work has evaluated the effectiveness of LLMs in solving CTF challenges with a fully automated workflow. We develop two CTF-solving workflows, human-in-the-loop (HITL) and fully-automated, to examine the LLMs' ability to solve a selected set of CTF challenges, prompted with information about the question. We collect human contestants' results on the same set of questions, and find that LLMs achieve higher success rate than an average human participant. This work provides a comprehensive evaluation of the capability of LLMs in solving real world CTF challenges, from real competition to fully automated workflow. Our results provide references for applying LLMs in cybersecurity education and pave the way for systematic evaluation of offensive cybersecurity capabilities in LLMs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Coding agents have also been applied to offensive security [11, 37, 60], theorem proving [44], and clinical tasks [38, 43, 52].”
From SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering (2024) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04761 · Cited by 1,150
Anil, R., Dai, A. M., Firat, O., Johnson, M., Lepikhin, D., Passos, A., Shakeri, S., Taropa, E., Bailey, P., Chen, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.10403 · Cited by 834
(2023) · doi:10.52202/075280-1035 · Cited by 26
Tann, W., Liu, Y., Sim, J. H., Seah, C. M., & Chang, E.-C. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.10443 · Cited by 14
Cited by
SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering
Yang, J., Jimenez, C., Wettig, A., Lieret, K., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Press, O. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-1601 · Cited by 264
SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering
Yang, J., Jimenez, C. E., Wettig, A., Lieret, K., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Press, O. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.15793 · Cited by 31
LLMs in Cyber Security: Bridging Practice and Education
Atlam, H. F. (2025) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc9070184 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Shao, M., Chen, B., Jancheska, S., Dolan-Gavitt, B., Garg, S., Karri, R., & Shafique, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2402.11814
- References
- 5
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Empirical Evaluation of LLMs for Solving Offensive Security Challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2402.11814
- The paper
- Shao, M., Chen, B., Jancheska, S., Dolan-Gavitt, B., Garg, S., Karri, R., & Shafique, M. (2024). An Empirical Evaluation of LLMs for Solving Offensive Security Challenges. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2402.11814
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
