ExploitGym
869 real-vulnerability exploit-development tasks (userspace, V8, Linux kernel). Success means capturing a flag through the intended vulnerability.
869 instances in three domains: 502 userspace, 181 browser (V8) and 186 Linux kernel. Agents turn a proof-of-vulnerability input into a working exploit that runs code. Part of the UC Berkeley RDI Frontier AI Cybersecurity Observatory.
- Made by
- UC Berkeley (Dawn Song lab)
- Released
- May 2026
- Kind
- Finding and exploiting real bugs
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Gemini 4 Carbon #2 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- November 2026
- Last model added
- November 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
AI agents are rapidly gaining capabilities that could significantly reshape cybersecurity, making rigorous evaluation urgent. A critical capability is exploitation: turning a vulnerability, which is not yet an attack, into a concrete security impact, such as unauthorized file access or code execution. Exploitation is a particularly challenging task because it requires low-level program reasoning (e.g., about memory layout), runtime adaptation, and sustained progress over long horizons. Meanwhile, it is inherently dual-use, supporting defensive workflows while lowering the barrier for offense. Despite its importance and diagnostic value, exploitation remains under-evaluated. To address this gap, we introduce ExploitGym, a large-scale, diverse, realistic benchmark on the exploitation capabilities of AI agents. Given a program input that triggers a vulnerability, ExploitGym tasks agents with progressively extending it into a working exploit. The benchmark comprises 898 instances sourced from real-world vulnerabilities across three domains, including userspace programs, Google's V8 JavaScript engine, and the Linux kernel. We vary the security protections applied to each instance, isolating their impact on agent performance. All configurations are packaged in reproducible containerized environments. Our evaluation shows that while exploitation remains challenging, frontier models can successfully exploit a non-trivial fraction of vulnerabilities. For example, the strongest configurations are Anthropic's latest model Claude Mythos Preview and OpenAI's GPT-5.5, which produce working exploits for 157 and 120 instances, respectively. Notably, even with widely used defenses enabled, models retain non-trivial success rates. These results establish ExploitGym as an effective testbed for exploitation and highlight the growing cybersecurity risks posed by increasingly capable AI agents.
GPT-6 Astra leads with 42.4%
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.
Gemini 4 Carbon leads with 54.8%, claims included
Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.
- 42.4 GPT-6 Astra
- 35.1 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 34.5 Claude Opus 5.5
- 33.7 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 30.4 Claude Mythos 5.1
- 28.4 Claude Mythos 5
- 23.7
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 22.0 Claude Opus 5
- 18.3 GLM-5.3
- 14.8 GPT-5.5
- 13.8 Claude Opus 4.8
- 7.02 GPT-5.4
- 4.49 GLM-5.2
- 1.84 Claude Opus 4.6
- 1.38
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 1.38 Claude Opus 4.7
- 0.81
Muse Spark 1.1
- 0.46 GLM-5.1
- 1 GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
- 2 GPT-6.1 Sol 35.1%
- 3 Claude Opus 5.5 34.5%
- 4 GPT-5.6 Sol max 33.7%
- 5 Claude Mythos 5.1 30.4%
- 6 Claude Mythos 5 28.4%
- 7
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 23.7%
- 8 Claude Opus 5 22%
- 9 GLM-5.3 6h timeout 18.3%
- 10 GPT-5.5 14.8%
- 11 Claude Opus 4.8 13.8%
- 12 GPT-5.4 7.02%
- 13 GLM-5.2 4.49%
- 14 Claude Opus 4.6 1.84%
- 15
Gemini 3.1 Pro 1.38%
- 16 Claude Opus 4.7 1.38%
- 17
Muse Spark 1.1 helpful-only 0.81%
- 18 GLM-5.1 0.46%
Source: Official ExploitGym leaderboard
- 54.8
Gemini 4 Carbon
- 48.5 GPT-6 Cyber
- 42.4 GPT-6 Astra
- 35.1 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 34.5 Claude Opus 5.5
- 33.7 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 30.4 Claude Mythos 5.1
- 28.4 Claude Mythos 5
- 26.6 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 23.7
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 23.2 GPT-5.6 Terra
- 22.1 GPT-6 Sol
- 22.0 Claude Opus 5
- 20.7 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 18.3 GLM-5.3
- 17.8 MiMo-V2.6 Pro
- 14.8 GPT-5.5
- 13.8 Claude Opus 4.8
- 12.4 GPT-5.6 Luna
- 11.6 GPT-6 Luna
- 9.40 Claude Haiku 5.5
- 7.02 GPT-5.4
- 4.49 GLM-5.2
- 1.84 Claude Opus 4.6
- 1.38
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 1.38 Claude Opus 4.7
- 0.81
Muse Spark 1.1
- 0.46 GLM-5.1
- 1
Gemini 4 Carbon 54.8%
- 2 GPT-6 Cyber 48.5%
- 3 GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
- 4 GPT-6.1 Sol 35.1%
- 5 Claude Opus 5.5 34.5%
- 6 GPT-5.6 Sol max 33.7%
- 7 Claude Mythos 5.1 30.4%
- 8 Claude Mythos 5 28.4%
- 9 Claude Sonnet 5.5 26.6%
- 10
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 23.7%
- 11 GPT-5.6 Terra 23.2%
- 12 GPT-6 Sol 22.1%
- 13 Claude Opus 5 22%
- 14 Kimi K3.1 Pro 20.7%
- 15 GLM-5.3 6h timeout 18.3%
- 16 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 17.8%
- 17 GPT-5.5 14.8%
- 18 Claude Opus 4.8 13.8%
- 19 GPT-5.6 Luna 12.4%
- 20 GPT-6 Luna 11.6%
- 21 Claude Haiku 5.5 9.40%
- 22 GPT-5.4 7.02%
- 23 GLM-5.2 4.49%
- 24 Claude Opus 4.6 1.84%
- 25
Gemini 3.1 Pro 1.38%
- 26 Claude Opus 4.7 1.38%
- 27
Muse Spark 1.1 helpful-only 0.81%
- 28 GLM-5.1 0.46%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official ExploitGym leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6 Astra | 42.4% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 35.1% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 34.5% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 33.7% | max, Codex CLI | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Claude Mythos 5.1 | 30.4% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Claude Mythos 5 | 28.4% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 23.7% | VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Opus 5 | 22% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GLM-5.3 | 18.3% | 6h timeout, VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | GPT-5.5 | 14.8% | Codex CLI | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 13.8% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | GPT-5.4 | 7.02% | Codex CLI | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | GLM-5.2 | 4.49% | Claude Code | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 1.84% | Claude Code | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 1.38% | Gemini CLI | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 1.38% | Claude Code | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 0.81% | helpful-only, Meta Agent (off-the-shelf agent harness) | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | GLM-5.1 | 0.46% | Claude Code | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 54.8% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | GPT-6 Cyber | 48.5% | Nov 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | GPT-6 Astra | 42.4% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 35.1% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 34.5% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 33.7% | max, Codex CLI | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Claude Mythos 5.1 | 30.4% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Claude Mythos 5 | 28.4% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 26.6% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | | 23.7% | VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | GPT-5.6 Terra | 23.2% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 12 | GPT-6 Sol | 22.1% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | Claude Opus 5 | 22% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 14 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 20.7% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 15 | GLM-5.3 | 18.3% | 6h timeout, VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 17.8% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 17 | GPT-5.5 | 14.8% | Codex CLI | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 13.8% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 12.4% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 20 | GPT-6 Luna | 11.6% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 21 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 9.40% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 22 | GPT-5.4 | 7.02% | Codex CLI | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | GLM-5.2 | 4.49% | Claude Code | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 1.84% | Claude Code | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | | 1.38% | Gemini CLI | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 1.38% | Claude Code | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | | 0.81% | helpful-only, Meta Agent (off-the-shelf agent harness) | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 28 | GLM-5.1 | 0.46% | Claude Code | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 15 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Of runs with a cost, the best scores 33.7% for $147 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official ExploitGym leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6 Astra | 42.4% | ||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 35.1% | ||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 34.5% | ||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | max | Codex CLI | 33.7% | $147 | 690,824 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 2h timeout | 33.3% | |||
| Claude Mythos 5.1 | 30.4% | ||||
| Claude Mythos 5 | 28.4% | ||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 2h timeout cutoff | Codex CLI | 24.9% | $62 | 302,953 |
| | VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) | 23.7% | $2.68 | 1,001,722 | |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 | 2h timeout | 23.4% | |||
| Claude Opus 5 | 22% | ||||
| Claude Mythos 5 | 2h timeout | 20.8% | |||
| Claude Opus 5 | 2h timeout | 19.7% | |||
| GLM-5.3 | 6h timeout | VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) | 18.3% | $35 | 346,425 |
| GLM-5.3 | Claude Code | 15% | |||
| GPT-5.5 | Codex CLI | 14.8% | $35 | 168,862 | |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 13.8% | ||||
| GLM-5.3 | rescaled 2h timeout | Claude Code | 12.1% | ||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 2h timeout | 9.21% | |||
| GPT-5.4 | Codex CLI | 7.02% | $25 | 312,596 | |
| GLM-5.2 | Claude Code | 4.49% | |||
| GLM-5.2 | rescaled 2h timeout | Claude Code | 3.34% | ||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Code | 1.84% | $22 | ||
| | Gemini CLI | 1.38% | $8.97 | 114,103 | |
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Code | 1.38% | $4.82 | 41,767 | |
| | helpful-only | Meta Agent (off-the-shelf agent harness) | 0.81% | ||
| GLM-5.1 | Claude Code | 0.46% | $6.39 | 224,573 |
4 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2026 5 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Sources: Official ExploitGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official ExploitGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards
6 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2026 | GPT-6 Cyber | 48.5 | ExploitGym, intended-exploit success rate |
| Oct 28, 2026 | 54.8 | ExploitGym | |
| Oct 24, 2026 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 20.7 | ExploitGym (6-hour budget) |
| Sep 22, 2026 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 17.8 | ExploitGym |
| Sep 10, 2026 | 15.3 | ExploitGym (Pass@1) | |
| Aug 14, 2026 | GLM-5.3 | ExploitGym (2h / 6h) | |
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 12.4 | ExploitGym |
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Terra | 23.2 | ExploitGym |
21 system cards report it, from 6 labs
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2026 | GPT-6 Cyber system card | 48.5 | ExploitGym, intended-exploit success rate | Cyber risk |
| Oct 23, 2026 | | 15 | ExploitGym success score (flags via intended vulnerability), 2-hour timeout, Muse Spark 1.3 (max), ReAct harness (Table 1, Table 3). 6-hour = 28 | Cyber risk |
| Oct 12, 2026 | | 20 | ExploitGym intended flags captured, Muse Wonder Full, after the 2026-10-23 harness correction (Cyber Capability Evaluations table, section 4). The first version reported 92 total and 21 intended flags | Cyber risk |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Claude Haiku 5.5 system card | 9.4 | ExploitGym, 82 of 869 successful exploits at the 6-hour budget (79 at 2 hours), converted to % (3.3.4, Figure 3.3.4.A) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 29, 2026 | GPT-6.1 Sol system card addendum | 35.1 | ExploitGym, intended-vulnerability success rate per attempt (9.1.2.2) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 28, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card | 26.6 | ExploitGym, 231 of 869 instances exploited at the 6-hour budget (205 at 2 hours), counts converted to % (3.2.4, Figure 3.2.4.A) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 22, 2026 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro technical report | 17.8 | ExploitGym (Table 3) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 22, 2026 | GPT-6 Sol system card | 22.1 | ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 22, 2026 | GPT-6 Luna system card | 11.6 | ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 22, 2026 | Claude Opus 5.5 system card | 34.5 | ExploitGym, 300 of 869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (289 at 2 hours), mitigations disabled, counts converted to % (3.3.4, Figure 3.3.4.A) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 10, 2026 | | 15.3 | ExploitGym (Pass@1) (Table 3) | Cyber risk |
| Sep 3, 2026 | GPT-6 Astra system card | 42.4 | ExploitGym v1, intended-exploit success rate, printed chart label (Figure 49) | Cyber risk |
| Jul 27, 2026 | | ExploitGym, Kernel = 0, Userspace = 0, Browser = 0, no overall score (External Cyber Benchmark Results) | Cyber risk | |
| Jul 24, 2026 | Claude Opus 5 system card | 22 | ExploitGym, 191/869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (171 at 2 hours), counts printed on chart converted to %, mitigations off (3.3.5, Figure 3.3.5.A) | Cyber risk |
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Terra system card | ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) | Cyber risk | |
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Sol system card | ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) | Cyber risk | |
| Jul 9, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Luna system card | ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) | Cyber risk | |
| Jul 9, 2026 | | 5 | ExploitGym tasks solved of 869, pass@1, 2-hour timeout (2.2.1.2 text). 7 at 4 hours; Table 1 shows 0.8% | Cyber risk |
| Jun 25, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Terra system card | ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) | Cyber risk | |
| Jun 25, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Sol system card | ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) | Cyber risk | |
| Jun 25, 2026 | GPT-5.6 Luna system card | ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) | Cyber risk |
5 lab claims next to the leaderboard
Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. 4 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.
| Model | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 15.3% ExploitGym (Pass@1) | 23.7% Leaderboard, VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) | −8.4 pts |
| GPT-6 Astra | 42.4% ExploitGym v1, intended-exploit success rate, printed chart label (Figure 49) | 42.4% Leaderboard | Same |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 34.5% ExploitGym, 300 of 869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (289 at 2 hours), mitigations disabled, counts converted to % (3.3.4, Figure 3.3.4.A) | 34.5% Leaderboard | Same |
| Claude Opus 5 | 22% ExploitGym, 191/869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (171 at 2 hours), counts printed on chart converted to %, mitigations off (3.3.5, Figure 3.3.5.A) | 22% Leaderboard | Same |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 35.1% ExploitGym, intended-vulnerability success rate per attempt (9.1.2.2) | 35.1% Leaderboard | Same |
More in Cybersecurity
- 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%
- MiMo Cyber Bench In use Agents do in-house cybersecurity tasks that add to public vulnerability reproduction and exploitation benchmarks. The report gives no task count or grading details. MiMo-V2.6 Pro 81.7%