Recognition: unknown
ExCyTIn-Bench: Evaluating LLM agents on Cyber Threat Investigation
read the original abstract
We present ExCyTIn-Bench, the first benchmark to Evaluate an LLM agent X on the task of Cyber Threat Investigation through security questions derived from investigation graphs. Real-world security analysts must sift through a large number of heterogeneous security logs, follow multi-hop chains of evidence to investigate threats. With the developments of LLMs, building LLM-based agents for automatic threat investigation is a promising direction. We construct a benchmark from a controlled Azure tenant including a SQL environment covering 57 log tables from Microsoft Sentinel and related services, and 7542 generated questions. We leverage security logs extracted with expert-crafted detection logic to build threat investigation graphs, and then generate questions with LLMs using paired nodes on the graph, taking the start node as background context and the end node as answer. Anchoring each question to these explicit nodes and edges not only provides automatic, explainable ground truth answers but also makes the pipeline reusable and readily extensible to new logs. Our comprehensive experiments on the test set with different models confirm the difficulty of the task: the best model so far can achieve a reward of 0.606, leaving much headroom for future research. The code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/SecRL
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Cyber Defense Benchmark: Agentic Threat Hunting Evaluation for LLMs in SecOps
A new benchmark shows frontier LLMs achieve only 3.8% average recall identifying malicious events from raw logs and fail to meet 50% recall thresholds on most tactics.
-
Pen-Strategist: A Reasoning Framework for Penetration Testing Strategy Formation and Analysis
Pen-Strategist fine-tunes Qwen-3-14B with RL on a pentesting reasoning dataset and pairs it with a CNN step classifier, reporting 87% better strategy derivation, 47.5% more subtask completions than baselines, and gain...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.