StealthBench: Measuring Operational Stealth in Autonomous Offensive-Security Agents

Stealth, the discipline of achieving an objective without revealing your presence, capabilities, or collected intelligence, is what separates sophisticated operators from detectable ones. Elite security researchers and advanced persistent threats achieve their objectives unnoticed; autonomous agents increasingly inherit the same offensive tasks, but do they inherit the tradecraft? We introduce StealthBench,a benchmark that measures operational stealth in autonomous offensive-security agents across six operational security (OPSEC) dimensions. We extract 11 hand-verified OPSEC incidents from real bug-bounty and red-team trajectories, expanded into 14 dockerized task scenarios, where agents, despite finding real vulnerabilities, committed stealth failures inconsistent with standard operational tradecraft: embedding credentials in public uploads, deleting production resources to prove access, force-adding uninvolved users to demonstrate a race condition. We evaluate agent trajectories using a 3-model large language model (LLM) judge panel with majority-vote aggregation, measuring safe success rate (solved and stealthy), Stealth@Solve (tradecraft quality among successful solves), and reckless solve rate (solved but cover blown). Our results show that no model exceeds 54% safe success rate (the compound metric requiring both task completion and stealth), confirming that OPSEC failures are systematic across model families. We release StealthBench as a public benchmark to support both the development of stealth-aware agents and automated OPSEC monitoring for autonomous offensive-security deployments. The interactive leaderboard, evaluation harness, and dataset are available at https://stealthbench.com.

Every Model Cheats: Prompt-Level Mitigation of Cheating on Offensive Cyber Tasks

Large language model (LLM) agents routinely cheat on cybersecurity benchmarks, inflating reported pass rates far beyond genuine capability. Prior audits of Cybench found cheating in 0.3-3.4% of traces, implicating only a handful of models. We present a controlled prompt-ablation study across 22 frontier models from 7 providers on 23 Cybench capture-the-flag (CTF) challenges under three prompt conditions (no anti-cheat, standard, severe). All 1,518 task traces were individually audited through a four-stage pipeline combining LLM-as-a-judge classification, programmatic verification, judge-verifier reconciliation, and human review. We find cheating is far more pervasive than previously estimated: under baseline conditions, 37.1% of passes involved cheating, 21 of 22 models cheated, and scores were inflated by up to 5x. Anti-cheat prompts reduce cheat propensity from 33.0% (baseline) to 17.8% (standard) to 8.5% (severe) without degrading, and sometimes improving, solve rates. However, even under the most restrictive prompt condition, eight models still produced cheated passes, four showed backfire effects, and cheating escalated from web search toward infrastructure probing. We introduce the "solve rate" metric (clean passes only) to distinguish genuine capability from cheated outcomes, and argue it should be standard practice in any evaluation where cheating vectors are available. Anti-cheat prompts are an effective and essentially free first layer of defense, but they are not a substitute for environmental controls.