Benchmark Almanac

SRE-Bench

GPT-6 Astra 56.9% leads since September 2026
GPT-6 Cyber 92.8% leads since November 2026
In use

Software reverse engineering without source: 262 binary instances from 19 private programs, each with six graded objectives.

Programs are private to stay contamination-free.

Released
August 2026
Kind
Capture-the-flag challenges
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
Kept private
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 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 improving in cybersecurity when source code is available, yet much of the software most consequential to security, including malware, firmware, and proprietary applications, exists only as binaries. Analyzing such software requires reverse engineering (RE): recovering program semantics before analysis can proceed. Evaluating agentic RE poses a fundamental challenge: realistic benchmark instances must (1) be absent from LLMs' training data to prevent shortcuts by memorization, and (2) reflect the scale and anti-analysis protections of real-world binaries. We introduce SRE-Bench, the first realistic, contamination-free RE benchmark. Built from scratch by RE experts with over 5,000 expert hours, SRE-Bench comprises 19 private, real-world-scale programs averaging 16.9K lines of code. We further developed 44 in-house anti-analysis mechanisms, yielding 262 binary instances and 1,572 deterministically graded tasks. We evaluated 13 agentic settings across 11 models: eight in public-facing settings and five in internal unconstrained settings with cyber safeguards disabled and no budget cap. Realistic RE remains challenging for frontier agents: GPT-5.6-Sol and Claude-Fable-5.1, despite strong source-code security capabilities, fully solve only 31.5% and 26.9% of graded instances, suggesting that success in source-code security does not translate into effective binary analysis. Without a budget cap and safety guard, GPT-6-Astra achieves a near-perfect pass@4 score, yet reliably identifying the correct candidate remains difficult. Agents are largely insensitive to compiler optimization and static linking, and ablations confirm that both contamination control and realistic scale are essential to understanding agents' RE capability. These findings highlight RE as a distinct frontier for agentic cybersecurity and establish SRE-Bench as a rigorous testbed for measuring progress.

Abstract of The Next Challenge for Agentic Cybersecurity: A Realistic, Contamination-Free Reverse Engineering Benchmark (arXiv:2608.11469, CC0)
37
Entries on its own leaderboard, 35 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

GPT-6 Astra leads with 56.9%

Best score per entry 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. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

GPT-6 Cyber leads with 92.8%, 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.

  1. 1 GPT-6 Astra 56.9%
  2. 2 GPT-6.1 Sol 50.8%
  3. 3 Gemini 4 Argon 44.3%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 5.5 33.6%
  5. 5 Daybreak Blue 31.7%
  6. 6 GPT-5.6 Sol 30.5%
  7. 7 GPT-6 Sol 30.5%
  8. 8 Claude Sonnet 5.5 30.1%
  9. 9 Kimi K3.1 Pro 27.1%
  10. 10 Claude Fable 5.1 22.9%
  11. 11 Claude Opus 5.5 (CVP) 21.8%
  12. 12 Claude Opus 5 12.2%
  13. 13 Muse Wonder Full 11.8%
  14. 14 Gemini 3.8 Flash 11.1%
  15. 15 GPT-5.6 Terra 9.54%
  16. 16 GLM-5.3 9.16%
  17. 17 Claude Haiku 5.5 5.72%
  18. 18 Gemini 3.7 Flash 4.58%
  19. 19 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 4.20%
  20. 20 GPT-5.5 3.82%
  21. 21 Muse Spark 1.3 max 3.82%
  22. 22 Grok 4.7 3.82%
  23. 23 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 3.05%
  24. 24 GPT-6 Luna 2.67%
  25. 25 Tencent Hy4 preview 2.29%
  26. 26 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 1.91%
  27. 27 Inkling 2 Small 1.91%
  28. 28 GPT-5.6 Luna 1.53%
  29. 29 Grok 4.5 0.76%
  30. 30 GLM-5.3-Flash 0.76%
  31. 31 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 0.76%
  32. 32 Claude Sonnet 5 0.38%
  33. 33 Step 5 Preview 0.38%
  34. 34 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0%
  35. 35 GLM-5.2 0%
  36. 36 Inkling 0%
  37. 37 Muse Spark 1.2 0%

Source: Official SRE-Bench leaderboard

Sources: Labs’ model cards and official SRE-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-6 Astra 56.9% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-6.1 Sol 50.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 4 Argon 44.3% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 5.5 33.6% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Daybreak Blue 31.7% Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.6 Sol 30.5% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-6 Sol 30.5% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Sonnet 5.5 30.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K3.1 Pro 27.1% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Fable 5.1 22.9% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 5.5 (CVP) 21.8% Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 5 12.2% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Muse Wonder Full 11.8% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Gemini 3.8 Flash 11.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
15 GPT-5.6 Terra 9.54% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
16 GLM-5.3 9.16% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Claude Haiku 5.5 5.72% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Gemini 3.7 Flash 4.58% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
19 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 4.20% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
20 GPT-5.5 3.82% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
21 Muse Spark 1.3 3.82% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
22 Grok 4.7 3.82% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
23 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 3.05% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
24 GPT-6 Luna 2.67% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
25 Tencent Hy4 preview 2.29% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
26 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 1.91% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
27 Inkling 2 Small 1.91% Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
28 GPT-5.6 Luna 1.53% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
29 Grok 4.5 0.76% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
30 GLM-5.3-Flash 0.76% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
31 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 0.76% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
32 Claude Sonnet 5 0.38% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
33 Step 5 Preview 0.38% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
34 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
35 GLM-5.2 0% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
36 Inkling 0% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
37 Muse Spark 1.2 0% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-6 Cyber 92.8% Nov 2026 Lab model card
2 GPT-6 Astra 88% Sep 2026 Lab model card
3 GPT-6.1 Sol 50.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 4 Argon 44.3% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 5.5 33.6% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.6 Sol 30.5% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-6 Sol 30.5% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Sonnet 5.5 30.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K3.1 Pro 27.1% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Fable 5.1 22.9% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 5 12.2% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Muse Wonder Full 11.8% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 3.8 Flash 11.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-5.6 Terra 9.54% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
15 GLM-5.3 9.16% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Claude Haiku 5.5 5.72% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Gemini 3.7 Flash 4.58% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
18 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 4.20% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
19 GPT-5.5 3.82% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Muse Spark 1.3 3.82% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
21 Grok 4.7 3.82% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
22 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 3.05% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
23 GPT-6 Luna 2.67% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
24 Tencent Hy4 preview 2.29% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
25 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 1.91% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Inkling 2 Small 1.91% Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
27 GPT-5.6 Luna 1.53% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
28 Grok 4.5 0.76% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
29 GLM-5.3-Flash 0.76% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
30 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 0.76% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
31 Claude Sonnet 5 0.38% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
32 Step 5 Preview 0.38% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
33 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
34 GLM-5.2 0% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
35 Inkling 0% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
36 Muse Spark 1.2 0% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 2 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Accuracy against latency

The Vals scatter chart with its x axis switched from Cost to Latency: mean time per test against accuracy, on a log scale. The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

0% 20% 40% 60% 1,00010K100K Latency (mean per test) (s), log scale, lower is better Accuracy Gemini 3.1 Pro: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 3,804 s GPT-5.5: Accuracy 3.82%, latency (mean per test) 2,788 s GLM-5.2: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 8,960 s Claude Sonnet 5: Accuracy 0.38%, latency (mean per test) 14K s Grok 4.5: Accuracy 0.76%, latency (mean per test) 3,939 s GPT-5.6 Luna: Accuracy 1.53%, latency (mean per test) 6,114 s GPT-5.6 Sol: Accuracy 30.5%, latency (mean per test) 5,285 s GPT-5.6 Terra: Accuracy 9.54%, latency (mean per test) 12K s Inkling: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 1,719 s Claude Opus 5: Accuracy 12.2%, latency (mean per test) 4,858 s Muse Spark 1.2: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 5,987 s DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813: Accuracy 1.91%, latency (mean per test) 8,426 s Gemini 3.7 Flash: Accuracy 4.58%, latency (mean per test) 6,606 s GLM-5.3: Accuracy 9.16%, latency (mean per test) 10K s GLM-5.3-Flash: Accuracy 0.76%, latency (mean per test) 12K s Tencent Hy4 preview: Accuracy 2.29%, latency (mean per test) 5,997 s Claude Fable 5.1: Accuracy 22.9%, latency (mean per test) 7,376 s Gemini 3.8 Flash: Accuracy 11.1%, latency (mean per test) 8,854 s Muse Spark 1.3 (max): Accuracy 3.82%, latency (mean per test) 6,407 s DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Accuracy 0.76%, latency (mean per test) 3,663 s Step 5 Preview: Accuracy 0.38%, latency (mean per test) 5,625 s Grok 4.7: Accuracy 3.82%, latency (mean per test) 6,043 s MiMo-V2.6 Flash: Accuracy 4.2%, latency (mean per test) 12K s MiMo-V2.6 Pro: Accuracy 3.05%, latency (mean per test) 8,563 s Claude Opus 5.5: Accuracy 33.6%, latency (mean per test) 5,795 s GPT-6 Luna: Accuracy 2.67%, latency (mean per test) 4,871 s GPT-6 Sol: Accuracy 30.5%, latency (mean per test) 3,808 s Claude Sonnet 5.5: Accuracy 30.1%, latency (mean per test) 6,882 s GPT-6.1 Sol: Accuracy 50.8%, latency (mean per test) 1,952 s Gemini 4 Argon: Accuracy 44.3%, latency (mean per test) 5,696 s Claude Haiku 5.5: Accuracy 5.72%, latency (mean per test) 3,476 s Muse Wonder Full: Accuracy 11.8%, latency (mean per test) 20K s Kimi K3.1 Pro: Accuracy 27.1%, latency (mean per test) 6,915 s Inkling 2 Small: Accuracy 1.91%, latency (mean per test) 8,370 s Daybreak Blue: Accuracy 31.7%, latency (mean per test) 10K s. Not in our model list Claude Opus 5.5 (CVP): Accuracy 21.8%, latency (mean per test) 12K s. Not in our model list GPT-6 Astra: Accuracy 56.9%, latency (mean per test) 1,071 s GPT-6 Astra 0% 20% 40% 60% 1,00010K100K Latency (mean per test) (s), log scale, lower is better Accuracy Gemini 3.1 Pro: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 3,804 s GPT-5.5: Accuracy 3.82%, latency (mean per test) 2,788 s GLM-5.2: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 8,960 s Claude Sonnet 5: Accuracy 0.38%, latency (mean per test) 14K s Grok 4.5: Accuracy 0.76%, latency (mean per test) 3,939 s GPT-5.6 Luna: Accuracy 1.53%, latency (mean per test) 6,114 s GPT-5.6 Sol: Accuracy 30.5%, latency (mean per test) 5,285 s GPT-5.6 Terra: Accuracy 9.54%, latency (mean per test) 12K s Inkling: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 1,719 s Claude Opus 5: Accuracy 12.2%, latency (mean per test) 4,858 s Muse Spark 1.2: Accuracy 0%, latency (mean per test) 5,987 s DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813: Accuracy 1.91%, latency (mean per test) 8,426 s Gemini 3.7 Flash: Accuracy 4.58%, latency (mean per test) 6,606 s GLM-5.3: Accuracy 9.16%, latency (mean per test) 10K s GLM-5.3-Flash: Accuracy 0.76%, latency (mean per test) 12K s Tencent Hy4 preview: Accuracy 2.29%, latency (mean per test) 5,997 s Claude Fable 5.1: Accuracy 22.9%, latency (mean per test) 7,376 s Gemini 3.8 Flash: Accuracy 11.1%, latency (mean per test) 8,854 s Muse Spark 1.3 (max): Accuracy 3.82%, latency (mean per test) 6,407 s DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Accuracy 0.76%, latency (mean per test) 3,663 s Step 5 Preview: Accuracy 0.38%, latency (mean per test) 5,625 s Grok 4.7: Accuracy 3.82%, latency (mean per test) 6,043 s MiMo-V2.6 Flash: Accuracy 4.2%, latency (mean per test) 12K s MiMo-V2.6 Pro: Accuracy 3.05%, latency (mean per test) 8,563 s Claude Opus 5.5: Accuracy 33.6%, latency (mean per test) 5,795 s GPT-6 Luna: Accuracy 2.67%, latency (mean per test) 4,871 s GPT-6 Sol: Accuracy 30.5%, latency (mean per test) 3,808 s Claude Sonnet 5.5: Accuracy 30.1%, latency (mean per test) 6,882 s GPT-6.1 Sol: Accuracy 50.8%, latency (mean per test) 1,952 s Gemini 4 Argon: Accuracy 44.3%, latency (mean per test) 5,696 s Claude Haiku 5.5: Accuracy 5.72%, latency (mean per test) 3,476 s Muse Wonder Full: Accuracy 11.8%, latency (mean per test) 20K s Kimi K3.1 Pro: Accuracy 27.1%, latency (mean per test) 6,915 s Inkling 2 Small: Accuracy 1.91%, latency (mean per test) 8,370 s Daybreak Blue: Accuracy 31.7%, latency (mean per test) 10K s. Not in our model list Claude Opus 5.5 (CVP): Accuracy 21.8%, latency (mean per test) 12K s. Not in our model list GPT-6 Astra: Accuracy 56.9%, latency (mean per test) 1,071 s GPT-6 Astra
ModelSettingAccuracyLatency (mean per test)
GPT-6 Astra 56.9% 1,071 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 50.8% 1,952 s
Gemini 4 Argon 44.3% 5,696 s
Claude Opus 5.5 33.6% 5,795 s
Daybreak Blue 31.7% 10,424 s
GPT-6 Sol 30.5% 3,808 s
GPT-5.6 Sol 30.5% 5,285 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 30.2% 6,882 s
Kimi K3.1 Pro 27.1% 6,915 s
Claude Fable 5.1 22.9% 7,376 s
Claude Opus 5.5 (CVP) 21.8% 12,118 s
Claude Opus 5 12.2% 4,858 s
Muse Wonder Full 11.8% 20,035 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash 11.1% 8,854 s
GPT-5.6 Terra 9.5% 11,801 s
GLM-5.3 9.2% 10,090 s
Claude Haiku 5.5 5.7% 3,476 s
Gemini 3.7 Flash 4.6% 6,606 s
MiMo-V2.6 Flash 4.2% 12,122 s
GPT-5.5 3.8% 2,788 s
Grok 4.7 3.8% 6,043 s
Muse Spark 1.3 max 3.8% 6,407 s
MiMo-V2.6 Pro 3.1% 8,563 s
GPT-6 Luna 2.7% 4,871 s
Tencent Hy4 preview 2.3% 5,997 s
Inkling 2 Small 1.9% 8,370 s
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 1.9% 8,426 s
GPT-5.6 Luna 1.5% 6,114 s
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 0.8% 3,663 s
Grok 4.5 0.8% 3,939 s
GLM-5.3-Flash 0.8% 11,693 s
Step 5 Preview 0.4% 5,625 s
Claude Sonnet 5 0.4% 13,985 s
Inkling 0% 1,719 s
Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% 3,804 s
Muse Spark 1.2 0% 5,987 s
GLM-5.2 0% 8,960 s

The best score, 56.9%, costs $10 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.

OpenAI Xiaomi Corp Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale GPT-6 Astra GPT-6.1 Sol MiMo-V2.6 Flash 0% 20% 40% 60% $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale GPT-6 Astra GPT-6.1 Sol

Source: Official SRE-Bench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-6 Astra 56.9% $10 31,609
GPT-6.1 Sol 50.8% $2.69
Gemini 4 Argon 44.3% $30 165,980
Claude Opus 5.5 33.6% $26 229,343
GPT-5.6 Sol 30.5% $43 112,756
GPT-6 Sol 30.5% $21 137,089
Claude Sonnet 5.5 30.1% $17 335,245
Kimi K3.1 Pro 27.1% $27 204,912
Claude Fable 5.1 22.9% $32 200,363
Claude Opus 5 12.2% $24 191,827
Muse Wonder Full 11.8% $34 107,477
Gemini 3.8 Flash 11.1% $27 234,258
GPT-5.6 Terra 9.54% $31 147,164
GLM-5.3 9.16% $27 272,384
Claude Haiku 5.5 5.72% $3.14 320,162
Gemini 3.7 Flash 4.58% $21 193,954
MiMo-V2.6 Flash 4.20% $0.40 337,831
GPT-5.5 3.82% $18 64,334
Muse Spark 1.3 max 3.82% $26 380,399
Grok 4.7 3.82% $65 200,178
MiMo-V2.6 Pro 3.05% $0.53 247,671
GPT-6 Luna 2.67% $1.55 291,615
Tencent Hy4 preview 2.29% $4.90 185,886
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 1.91% $5.58 256,063
Inkling 2 Small 1.91% $6.67 446,426
GPT-5.6 Luna 1.53% $3.44 176,821
Grok 4.5 0.76% $13 118,147
GLM-5.3-Flash 0.76% $2.29 165,060
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 0.76% $0.55 212,868
Claude Sonnet 5 0.38% $18 299,587
Step 5 Preview 0.38% $3.07 267,941
Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% $11 84,209
GLM-5.2 0% $27 204,975
Inkling 0% $2.23 64,530
Muse Spark 1.2 0% $23 195,621

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in August 2026 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in August 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.

OpenAI
Own leaderboard 2 leaders
GPT-6 Astra 56.9%
Lab claims Passed 85% in Sep 2026, by GPT-6 Astra
GPT-6 Cyber 92.8%

Sources: Official SRE-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

OpenAI’s own number for GPT-6 Astra passed 85% in September 2026

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

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Cyber GPT-6 Astra GPT-5.6 Sol GPT-5.5 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Cyber GPT-5.6 Sol

Sources: Official SRE-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

One lab 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.

OpenAI
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Nov 5, 2026 GPT-6 Cyber 92.8 SRE-Bench, pass@1, all six objectives required

2 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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
Nov 5, 2026 GPT-6 Cyber system card 92.8 SRE-Bench, pass@1, all six objectives required Cyber risk
Sep 3, 2026 GPT-6 Astra system card 88 SRE-Bench, pass@4 (pass@1 88.0%, printed chart label) (10.1.2.3, Figure 50) Cyber risk

One lab claim 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. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
GPT-6 Astra 88% SRE-Bench, pass@4 (pass@1 88.0%, printed chart label) (10.1.2.3, Figure 50) 56.9% Leaderboard +31 pts

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%
  • 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%