Benchmark Almanac

CyberSOCEval Threat Intelligence Reasoning

MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 55.3% 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.

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)
Made by Meta (PurpleLlama) with CrowdStrike Released Sep 2025 Finding and exploiting real bugs All tasks public Last in a system card Jul 2026 Last model added Jul 2026
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Multiple choice
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%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 55.3% Jul 2026 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

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 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
27 Jul 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 111 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%
  • CWE-bench In use Agents audit a repository and write a patch for a security flaw, without being told where the bug is. Covers six programming languages. Gemini 4 Carbon 71%
  • Real-world vulnerability discovery In use Agents search popular open-source codebases to rediscover about 1,200 recent confirmed vulnerabilities across many languages. Reports share discovered. Gemini 4 Argon 86%
  • Artificial Analysis Cyber Index In use Agents do enterprise cyber defense tasks from three benchmarks, CWE-Bench-AA, DeepsecBench-AA and CyberGym-E2E-AA, combined into one success rate. Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights) 51%
  • Big Sleep Evaluation (Google) In use Agents search large real codebases such as Chrome and Safari for critical, hard to find vulnerabilities. Scored by pass@1 success rate, run without safety guardrails. Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 72%