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.
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.
- 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
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
GPT-6 Astra leads with 42.4%
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.
- 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
- 9.09 GLM-5.2
- 7.02 GPT-5.4
- 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 GLM-5.2 selected subset 9.09%
- 13 GPT-5.4 7.02%
- 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%
| # | 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 | GLM-5.2 | 9.09% | selected subset, DoGNAVY | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | GPT-5.4 | 7.02% | Codex CLI | Mar 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 |
Labs report scores for 14 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
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.
| 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 | DoGNAVY | 18.1% | $21 | 1,508,610 | |
| 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% | |||
| GLM-5.2 | selected subset | DoGNAVY | 9.09% | $4.80 | 308,536 |
| 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 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.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 Oct 2026 | 54.8 | ExploitGym | |
| 24 Oct 2026 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 20.7 | ExploitGym (6-hour budget) |
| 22 Sep 2026 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 17.8 | ExploitGym |
| 10 Sep 2026 | 15.3 | ExploitGym (Pass@1) | |
| 14 Aug 2026 | GLM-5.3 | 105 | ExploitGym (2h / 6h) |
| 9 Jul 2026 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 12.4 | ExploitGym |
| 9 Jul 2026 | GPT-5.6 Terra | 23.2 | ExploitGym |
20 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 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 |
| 12 Oct 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 |
| 7 Oct 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 |
| 29 Sep 2026 | GPT-6.1 Sol system card addendum | 35.1 | ExploitGym, intended-vulnerability success rate per attempt (9.1.2.2) | Cyber risk |
| 28 Sep 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 |
| 22 Sep 2026 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro technical report | 17.8 | ExploitGym (Table 3) | Cyber risk |
| 22 Sep 2026 | GPT-6 Sol system card | 22.1 | ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) | Cyber risk |
| 22 Sep 2026 | GPT-6 Luna system card | 11.6 | ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) | Cyber risk |
| 22 Sep 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 |
| 10 Sep 2026 | | 15.3 | ExploitGym (Pass@1) (Table 3) | Cyber risk |
| 3 Sep 2026 | GPT-6 Astra system card | 42.4 | ExploitGym v1, intended-exploit success rate, printed chart label (Figure 49) | Cyber risk |
| 27 Jul 2026 | | ExploitGym, Kernel = 0, Userspace = 0, Browser = 0, no overall score (External Cyber Benchmark Results) | Cyber risk | |
| 24 Jul 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 |
| 9 Jul 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 | |
| 9 Jul 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 | |
| 9 Jul 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 | |
| 9 Jul 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 |
| 25 Jun 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 | |
| 25 Jun 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 | |
| 25 Jun 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 |
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%
- 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%
- Chrome Production Commit Scanning (Google) In use Models scan commits in Chrome's production pipeline for vulnerabilities that were never publicly disclosed. Scored by pass@1 success rate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 72%