May 27, 2024

Cybersecurity Persistence Benchmark

Davide Zani, Felix Michalak, Jeremias Ferrao

The rapid advancement of LLMs has revolutionized the field of artificial intelligence, enabling machines to perform complex tasks with unprecedented accuracy. However, this increased capability also raises concerns about the potential misuse of LLMs in cybercrime. This paper proposes a new benchmark to evaluate the ability of LLMs to maintain long-term control over a target machine, a critical aspect of cybersecurity known as "persistence." Our benchmark tests the ability of LLMs to use various persistence techniques, such as modifying startup files and using Cron jobs, to maintain control over a Linux VM even after a system reboot. We evaluate the performance of open-source LLMs on our benchmark and discuss the implications of our results for the safe deployment of LLMs. Our work highlights the need for more robust evaluation methods to assess the cybersecurity risks of LLMs and provides a tangible metric for policymakers and developers to make informed decisions about the integration of AI into our increasingly interconnected world.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Very cool idea! Definitely worth expanding. Some crucial methodological concerns here (as in many of the frontier capabilities benchmarks) are: whether the scaffolding is limiting the success rate and whether we are more interested in deterministic or probabilistic success. Analysis on how sensitive this benchmark is to these questions would be extremely valuable.

Nice work! I am a big fan of the specificity that was brought to this problem while still considering the broader space of contemporary work; that is, isolating persistence and evaluating it as a key cybersecurity capability seems highly valuable, as we get a more granular look at an important aspect of this threat. I also really appreciated the motivation of the work provided in the paper, and the inclusion of example interactions with the model directly in the appendix. I am curious what cutting edge scaffolding around command line usage would affect the results seen here, as potentially the failures of the two Llama models are related to command line interaction difficulties. I also would like to see some plots in future work in order to streamline the transfer of information.

This is a great project. An important threat model, good relation to existing literature, and well-motivated methodological choices that lead to a strong project. Unfortunate to hear that rate limits were a blocker to get results but it looks like the qualitative results are top-notch.

Good idea that’s very relevant for AI security! What I’d love to see is realistic real world scenarios where these capabilities of LLMs can be used for harmful purposes. The benchmark is a really good first step in this direction! Will be interesting to also see how the best proprietary models perform on this benchmark.

Focused. I like it.

Very well structured experiment with important practical applications. I encourage the authors to pursue these ideas further, despite "negative" initial results (which we should in general have more room for in publication venues) in the form of unimpressive performance of the tested LLMs.

The authors refer to multiple existing benchmarks, both from the wider field and more similar, narrow areas of scientific inquiry. The defined measure is very clearly defined (presence of created file in current working directory). The paper comes with a well documented repo - but make sure to remove the REPLICATE_KEY from main.py (line 95). I recommend using tools like trufflehog (https://github.com/trufflesecurity/trufflehog) and hook them up as pre-checks to every pushed commit to automatically prevent this.

The authors are clearly knowledgeable in the domain area (cybersecurity) but keep the paper understandable to an audience without specialization in it. I think it was very ambitious to use a cloud provider (AWS), perhaps the experiment would be worth revisiting with testing on local docker deployments? The paper also does a great job of providing the reader with all the moving parts needed to configure the experiments (prompts & examples of agent interactions in the appendix). Maybe using a model fine-tuned on code writing tasks would perform better? E.g. StarCoder 2 or Phind-CodeLlama?

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

Cybersecurity Persistence Benchmark

},

author={

Davide Zani, Felix Michalak, Jeremias Ferrao

},

date={

5/27/24

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.