Reza Fayyazi

Reza Fayyazi, Shanchieh Jay Yang

The volume, variety, and velocity of change in vulnerabilities and exploits have made incident threat analysis challenging with human expertise and experience along. Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) are to describe how and why attackers exploit vulnerabilities. However, a TTP description written by one security professional can be interpreted very differently by another, leading to confusion in cybersecurity operations or even business, policy, and legal decisions. Meanwhile, advancements in AI have led to the increasing use of Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms to assist the various tasks in cyber operations. With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), NLP tasks have significantly improved because of the LLM's semantic understanding and scalability. This leads us to question how well LLMs can interpret TTPs or general cyberattack descriptions to inform analysts of the intended purposes of cyberattacks. We propose to analyze and compare the direct use of LLMs (e.g., GPT-3.5) versus supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of small-scale-LLMs (e.g., BERT) to study their capabilities in predicting ATT&CK tactics. Our results reveal that the small-scale-LLMs with SFT provide a more focused and clearer differentiation between the ATT&CK tactics (if such differentiation exists). On the other hand, direct use of LLMs offer a broader interpretation of cyberattack techniques. When treating more general cases, despite the power of LLMs, inherent ambiguity exists and limits their predictive power. We then summarize the challenges and recommend research directions on LLMs to treat the inherent ambiguity of TTP descriptions used in various cyber operations.

Reza Fayyazi, Rozhina Taghdimi, Shanchieh Jay Yang

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) outline the methods attackers use to exploit vulnerabilities. The interpretation of TTPs in the MITRE ATT&CK framework can be challenging for cybersecurity practitioners due to presumed expertise and complex dependencies. Meanwhile, advancements with Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to recent surge in studies exploring its uses in cybersecurity operations. It is, however, unclear how LLMs can be used in an efficient and proper way to provide accurate responses for critical domains such as cybersecurity. This leads us to investigate how to better use two types of LLMs: small-scale encoder-only (e.g., RoBERTa) and larger decoder-only (e.g., GPT-3.5) LLMs to comprehend and summarize TTPs with the intended purposes (i.e., tactics) of a cyberattack procedure. This work studies and compares the uses of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of encoder-only LLMs vs. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) for decoder-only LLMs (without fine-tuning). Both SFT and RAG techniques presumably enhance the LLMs with relevant contexts for each cyberattack procedure. Our studies show decoder-only LLMs with RAG achieves better performance than encoder-only models with SFT, particularly when directly relevant context is extracted by RAG. The decoder-only results could suffer low `Precision' while achieving high `Recall'. Our findings further highlight a counter-intuitive observation that more generic prompts tend to yield better predictions of cyberattack tactics than those that are more specifically tailored.

Katsuaki Nakano, Reza Fayyazi, Shanchieh Jay Yang et al.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have driven interest in automating cybersecurity penetration testing workflows, offering the promise of faster and more consistent vulnerability assessment for enterprise systems. Existing LLM agents for penetration testing primarily rely on self-guided reasoning, which can produce inaccurate or hallucinated procedural steps. As a result, the LLM agent may undertake unproductive actions, such as exploiting unused software libraries or generating cyclical responses that repeat prior tactics. In this work, we propose a guided reasoning pipeline for penetration testing LLM agents that incorporates a deterministic task tree built from the MITRE ATT&CK Matrix, a proven penetration testing kll chain, to constrain the LLM's reaoning process to explicitly defined tactics, techniques, and procedures. This anchors reasoning in proven penetration testing methodologies and filters out ineffective actions by guiding the agent towards more productive attack procedures. To evaluate our approach, we built an automated penetration testing LLM agent using three LLMs (Llama-3-8B, Gemini-1.5, and GPT-4) and applied it to navigate 10 HackTheBox cybersecurity exercises with 103 discrete subtasks representing real-world cyberattack scenarios. Our proposed reasoning pipeline guided the LLM agent through 71.8\%, 72.8\%, and 78.6\% of subtasks using Llama-3-8B, Gemini-1.5, and GPT-4, respectively. Comparatively, the state-of-the-art LLM penetration testing tool using self-guided reasoning completed only 13.5\%, 16.5\%, and 75.7\% of subtasks and required 86.2\%, 118.7\%, and 205.9\% more model queries. This suggests that incorporating a deterministic task tree into LLM reasoning pipelines can enhance the accuracy and efficiency of automated cybersecurity assessments

Reza Fayyazi, Michael Zuzak, Shanchieh Jay Yang

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for cybersecurity threat analysis, but their deployment in security-sensitive environments raises trust and safety concerns. With over 21,000 vulnerabilities disclosed in 2025, manual analysis is infeasible, making scalable and verifiable AI support critical. When querying LLMs, dealing with emerging vulnerabilities is challenging as they have a training cut-off date. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) can inject up-to-date context to alleviate the cut-off date limitation, it remains unclear how much LLMs rely on retrieved evidence versus the model's internal knowledge, and whether the retrieved information is meaningful or even correct. This uncertainty could mislead security analysts, mis-prioritize patches, and increase security risks. Therefore, this work proposes LLM Embedding-based Attribution (LEA) to analyze the generated responses for vulnerability exploitation analysis. More specifically, LEA quantifies the relative contribution of internal knowledge vs. retrieved content in the generated responses. We evaluate LEA on 500 critical vulnerabilities disclosed between 2016 and 2025, across three RAG settings -- valid, generic, and incorrect -- using three state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results demonstrate LEA's ability to detect clear distinctions between non-retrieval, generic-retrieval, and valid-retrieval scenarios with over 95% accuracy on larger models. Finally, we demonstrate the limitations posed by incorrect retrieval of vulnerability information and raise a cautionary note to the cybersecurity community regarding the blind reliance on LLMs and RAG for vulnerability analysis. LEA offers security analysts with a metric to audit RAG-enhanced workflows, improving the transparent and trustworthy deployment of AI in cybersecurity threat analysis.