Benchmark Almanac

CyberSOCEval Threat Intelligence Reasoning

Only in system cards

Models read unstructured threat intelligence reports as text or images and pick every actionable insight that applies.

One of two CyberSOCEval tests built with CrowdStrike and added in CyberSecEval 4. Multiple options may be correct. Announced 15 September 2025 at Fal.Con, arXiv 2509.20166.

Released
September 2025
Kind
Finding and exploiting real bugs
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
July 2026
Last model added
July 2026

In the authors’ words

Today's cyber defenders are overwhelmed by a deluge of security alerts, threat intelligence signals, and shifting business context, creating an urgent need for AI systems to enhance operational security work. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to automate and scale Security Operations Center (SOC) operations, existing evaluations do not fully assess the scenarios most relevant to real-world defenders. This lack of informed evaluation impacts both AI developers and those applying LLMs to SOC automation. Without clear insight into LLM performance in real-world security scenarios, developers lack a north star for development, and users cannot reliably select the most effective models. Meanwhile, malicious actors are using AI to scale cyber attacks, highlighting the need for open source benchmarks to drive adoption and community-driven improvement among defenders and model developers. To address this, we introduce CyberSOCEval, a new suite of open source benchmarks within CyberSecEval 4. CyberSOCEval includes benchmarks tailored to evaluate LLMs in two tasks: Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning–core defensive domains with inadequate coverage in current benchmarks. Our evaluations show that larger, more modern LLMs tend to perform better, confirming the training scaling laws paradigm. We also find that reasoning models leveraging test time scaling do not achieve the same boost as in coding and math, suggesting these models have not been trained to reason about cybersecurity analysis, and pointing to a key opportunity for improvement. Finally, current LLMs are far from saturating our evaluations, showing that CyberSOCEval presents a significant challenge for AI developers to improve cyber defense capabilities.

Abstract of CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning (arXiv:2509.20166, CC0)
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

MAI-Cyber-1-Flash leads with 55.3%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 55.3%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 55.3% Jul 2026 Lab model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) MAI-Cyber-1-Flash

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jul 27, 2026 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash model card 55.3 CyberSecEval4 Threat Intel, printed 0.553 (External Cyber Benchmark Results) Cyber risk

More in Cybersecurity

All 115 in Cybersecurity
  • ExploitGym In use 869 real-vulnerability exploit-development tasks (userspace, V8, Linux kernel). Success means capturing a flag through the intended vulnerability. GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
  • ExploitBench In use 41 recent V8 JavaScript-engine N-day vulnerabilities. Progress measured by 16 grader-verified capability flags across five tiers. GPT-6 Astra 100%
  • CyberBench v1.1 (Vals) In use Agents work on OSS-Fuzz memory-safety bugs from ARVO images in two tracks. They write a proof-of-concept input that crashes the target, or patch the source so the crash stops and tests still pass. Muse Wonder 80.4%
  • SRE-Bench In use Software reverse engineering without source: 262 binary instances from 19 private programs, each with six graded objectives. GPT-6 Astra 56.9%
  • CyScenarioBench In use Scenario-based long-horizon security challenges in sandboxes, organized in task, scenario and campaign tiers. Evaluation set kept private. Gemini 4 Argon 100%
  • ExploitBench - Internal Port In use Agents develop working exploits for recently disclosed vulnerabilities to limit contamination. Scored as arbitrary code execution success rate. GPT-6 Cyber 42%