Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
96 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Premium
48 tokens/sec
GPT-5 Medium
15 tokens/sec
GPT-5 High Premium
23 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
104 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Premium
77 tokens/sec
GPT OSS 120B via Groq Premium
466 tokens/sec
Kimi K2 via Groq Premium
201 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Generative Artificial Intelligence-Supported Pentesting: A Comparison between Claude Opus, GPT-4, and Copilot (2501.06963v1)

Published 12 Jan 2025 in cs.CR and cs.AI

Abstract: The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has brought a significant change to our society. GenAI can be applied across numerous fields, with particular relevance in cybersecurity. Among the various areas of application, its use in penetration testing (pentesting) or ethical hacking processes is of special interest. In this paper, we have analyzed the potential of leading generic-purpose GenAI tools-Claude Opus, GPT-4 from ChatGPT, and Copilot-in augmenting the penetration testing process as defined by the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES). Our analysis involved evaluating each tool across all PTES phases within a controlled virtualized environment. The findings reveal that, while these tools cannot fully automate the pentesting process, they provide substantial support by enhancing efficiency and effectiveness in specific tasks. Notably, all tools demonstrated utility; however, Claude Opus consistently outperformed the others in our experimental scenarios.

Summary

  • The paper evaluates Claude Opus, GPT-4, and Copilot within the PTES framework, finding GenAI augments pentesting efficiency but does not enable full automation.
  • Claude Opus is identified as the most effective tool among those tested due to its precision and adaptability across various pentesting phases, outperforming GPT-4 and Copilot.
  • Integrating GenAI tools can significantly reduce pentesting time and effort, highlighting their value as supplementary aids to human pentesters, whose oversight remains crucial.

Generative Artificial Intelligence-Supported Pentesting: A Detailed Analysis

The paper under discussion evaluates the integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools in the context of penetration testing (pentesting) using the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) framework. The paper focuses on three prominent GenAI tools—Claude Opus, GPT-4, and Copilot—and explores their roles and effectiveness in enhancing the pentesting process within a virtualized environment.

The central thesis of the paper is that while these tools do not enable a fully automated pentesting process, they significantly augment traditional methodologies by improving efficiency and productivity. This is particularly relevant given the rise of GenAI capabilities across various domains, including cybersecurity. The research highlights Claude Opus as the most effective tool among the ones evaluated, primarily due to its precision, adaptability, and comprehensive command generation across various PTES phases.

The paper meticulously follows the seven phases of the PTES methodology, experimenting with each GenAI tool to assess their utility. These phases include Pre-engagement Interactions, Intelligence Gathering, Threat Modeling, Vulnerability Analysis, Exploitation, Post Exploitation, and Reporting. Each tool's performance is evaluated in the context of these phases, using a controlled environment that mimics a Windows Active Directory setup, known as GOAD. This includes conducting enumeration, exploitation, and post-exploitation tasks.

Significantly, the evaluation reveals that Claude Opus outperforms others in maintaining long, coherent conversations and adapting responses, making it particularly suitable for complex tasks that require continuous adjustment. GPT-4 follows, offering well-structured outputs and adaptability, though it occasionally requires manual adjustments for more context-specific applications. Copilot, although functional for basic tasks, demonstrates limitations in terms of customization and context sensitivity, which hinder its performance in complex scenarios.

A critical insight from the paper is the potential of these tools to significantly reduce the time and effort required for pentesting tasks, highlighting their role as supplementary aids to human expertise, rather than outright replacements. While these GenAI tools provide substantial support in terms of automating certain components of the pentesting process, the paper emphasizes that human oversight remains indispensable to validate AI-generated results and ensure ethical considerations are maintained.

The paper also addresses the broader implications of employing GenAI in cybersecurity, touching upon concerns over ethical and legal ramifications, potential misuse, and the balance between leveraging these technologies and maintaining human critical analysis capabilities. Additionally, the paper calls for more tailored GenAI solutions for pentesting to enhance their applicability and reliability.

In conclusion, the research demonstrates that integrating GenAI tools into pentesting workflows can offer notable advantages, particularly in automating routine tasks and generating rapid insights. However, it stresses that these tools should complement rather than replace human pentesters. Future research directions highlighted by the authors include further customization of GenAI tools for more specific pentesting applications and deeper investigations into their potential ethical implications. Such developments could set the stage for more robust and adaptive cybersecurity frameworks in an increasingly AI-driven digital landscape.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com