Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

Forewarned is Forearmed: A Survey on Large Language Model-based Agents in Autonomous Cyberattacks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.12786 v2 pith:K2WDRMTW submitted 2025-05-19 cs.NI

Forewarned is Forearmed: A Survey on Large Language Model-based Agents in Autonomous Cyberattacks

classification cs.NI
keywords agentsllm-basedautonomouscyberattacksacrossattackcybernetwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the continuous evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs), LLM-based agents have advanced beyond passive chatbots to become autonomous cyber entities capable of performing complex tasks, including web browsing, malicious code and deceptive content generation, and decision-making. By significantly reducing the time, expertise, and resources, AI-assisted cyberattacks orchestrated by LLM-based agents have led to a phenomenon termed Cyber Threat Inflation, characterized by a significant reduction in attack costs and a tremendous increase in attack scale. To provide actionable defensive insights, in this survey, we focus on the potential cyber threats posed by LLM-based agents across diverse network systems. Firstly, we present the capabilities of LLM-based cyberattack agents, which include executing autonomous attack strategies, comprising scouting, memory, reasoning, and action, and facilitating collaborative operations with other agents or human operators. Building on these capabilities, we examine common cyberattacks initiated by LLM-based agents and compare their effectiveness across different types of networks, including static, mobile, and infrastructure-free paradigms. Moreover, we analyze threat bottlenecks of LLM-based agents across different network infrastructures and review their defense methods. Due to operational imbalances, existing defense methods are inadequate against autonomous cyberattacks. Finally, we outline future research directions and potential defensive strategies for legacy network systems.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Rethinking AI Cloud Infrastructure for Agentic Serving Systems with the Aries Experimentation Framework

    cs.DC 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Agent serving faces non-inference bottlenecks (up to 48% of latency), a 4.4x serving-capacity loss from long context, and 4.9x cost amplification from snapshot-based sandbox suspension.

  2. Safety Testing LLM Agents at Scale: From Risk Discovery to Evidence-Grounded Verification

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Vera automates safety testing for LLM agents via literature-driven risk taxonomies, combinatorial case generation, and evidence-grounded verification in isolated environments, showing 93.9% average attack success on f...

  3. Self-Adaptive Multi-Agent LLM-Based Security Pattern Selection for IoT Systems

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ASPO combines multi-agent LLM proposals with deterministic enforcement in a MAPE-K loop to select conflict-free, resource-feasible security patterns for IoT, delivering 100% safety invariants and 21-23% tail latency/e...

  4. Explainable Autonomous Cyber Defense using Adversarial Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

    cs.CR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    C-MADF learns a structural causal model to restrict response actions in an MDP and uses dual blue-red RL policies to achieve 1.8% false-positive rate and 0.979 F1 on the CICIoT2023 dataset.

  5. Autonomous Adversary: Red-Teaming in the age of LLM

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Expert-defined action plans for LLM agents achieve higher task completion in lateral-movement scenarios than fully autonomous or self-scaffolded modes, but failures remain common due to brittle commands and state handling.

  6. Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A synthesis of 247 papers on LLM agent security identifies prompt injection and tool hijacking as dominant threats, notes weakly compositional defenses, and argues for trust boundaries and realistic evaluations.

  7. Trustworthy AI LLM Scalability Risk Index (LSRI): A Cybersecurity Framework Assessing Agentic-AI Security & Software Model Supply Chain Safety Boosting AI-Generated Malware Defense & Explainability Mitigating Emerging Risks of Generative AI

    cs.CR 2026-02 reject novelty 3.0

    LSRI is a hand-calibrated weighted risk score for LLM deployments, paired with a Sigstore-based checkpoint attestation proposal; neither is empirically validated.