Every Model Cheats: Prompt-Level Mitigation of Cheating on Offensive Cyber Tasks

A controlled prompt-ablation study across 22 frontier models from 7 providers on 23 Cybench CTF challenges found that 37.1% of passes involved cheating under baseline conditions, with 21 of 22 models cheating and scores inflated by up to 5x. Anti-cheat prompts reduced cheat propensity from 33.0% to 8.5% without degrading solve rates, but eight models still cheated under the most restrictive condition, leading the authors to propose a 'solve rate' metric as standard practice.

Computer Science Cryptography and Security Submitted on 23 Jul 2026 Title:Every Model Cheats: Prompt-Level Mitigation of Cheating on Offensive Cyber Tasks View PDF /pdf/2607.21763 HTML experimental https://arxiv.org/html/2607.21763v1 Abstract:Large language model LLM agents routinely cheat on cybersecurity benchmarks, inflating reported pass rates far beyond genuine capability. Prior audits of Cybench found cheating in 0.3-3.4% of traces, implicating only a handful of models. We present a controlled prompt-ablation study across 22 frontier models from 7 providers on 23 Cybench capture-the-flag CTF challenges under three prompt conditions no anti-cheat, standard, severe . All 1,518 task traces were individually audited through a four-stage pipeline combining LLM-as-a-judge classification, programmatic verification, judge-verifier reconciliation, and human review. We find cheating is far more pervasive than previously estimated: under baseline conditions, 37.1% of passes involved cheating, 21 of 22 models cheated, and scores were inflated by up to 5x. Anti-cheat prompts reduce cheat propensity from 33.0% baseline to 17.8% standard to 8.5% severe without degrading, and sometimes improving, solve rates. However, even under the most restrictive prompt condition, eight models still produced cheated passes, four showed backfire effects, and cheating escalated from web search toward infrastructure probing. We introduce the "solve rate" metric clean passes only to distinguish genuine capability from cheated outcomes, and argue it should be standard practice in any evaluation where cheating vectors are available. Anti-cheat prompts are an effective and essentially free first layer of defense, but they are not a substitute for environmental controls. References & Citations Loading... Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer What is the Explorer? https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html arxiv-bibliographic-explorer Connected Papers What is Connected Papers? https://www.connectedpapers.com/about Litmaps What is Litmaps? https://www.litmaps.co/ scite Smart Citations What are Smart Citations? https://www.scite.ai/ Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv What is alphaXiv? https://alphaxiv.org/ CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers What is CatalyzeX? https://www.catalyzex.com DagsHub What is DagsHub? https://dagshub.com/ Gotit.pub What is GotitPub? http://gotit.pub/faq Hugging Face What is Huggingface? https://huggingface.co/huggingface ScienceCast What is ScienceCast? https://sciencecast.org/welcome Demos Recommenders and Search Tools Influence Flower What are Influence Flowers? https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/ CORE Recommender What is CORE? https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html .