Penetration Testing for Websites using LLM
Authors
Dr. Vilas S. Gaikwad
Dept. of Information Technology Trinity College of Engineering and Research (IN)
Soham Deshmukh
Dept. of Information Technology Trinity College of Engineering and Research (IN)
Mohanish Kulkarni
Dept. of Information Technology Trinity College of Engineering and Research (IN)
Pallavi Akolkar
Dept. of Information Technology Trinity College of Engineering and Research (IN)
Jayam Mehta
Dept. of Information Technology Trinity College of Engineering and Research (IN)
Article Information
DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150500244
Subject Category: Artificial Intelligence & CyberSecurity
Volume/Issue: 15/5 | Page No: 3014-3026
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2026-06-22
Published: 2026-06-22
Abstract
Despite growing interest in applying Large Lan-guage Models (LLMs) to security assessment, existing prototype systems rarely provide controlled benchmarks, reproducible ar-tifacts, significance testing, or structured human evaluation. We introduce a reproducible, safety-bounded LLM-augmented web assessment framework that layers an LLM reasoning module atop conventional scanners to perform context-aware triage, con-strained payload proposal, evidence-grounded response analysis, false-alarm suppression, and actionable fix guidance. Empirical evaluation across WebGoat v2023.4, DVWA v1.9, bWAPP v2.2, and five authorized staging replicas of disclosed targets — spanning 1,247 endpoints and 462 labeled ground-truth flaws shows that the proposed approach raises micro-averaged F1 from 0.58 to 0.82 over scanner-only baselines, lowers the false-alarm rate from 23.4% to 7.2% (McNemar p<0.001), and shortens analyst review time by 43%, from 47 to 27 minutes per engagement (Wilcoxon p=0.008). Over 2,500 test executions, the safety layer blocked every destructive candidate payload with zero unsafe executions. A structured 10-person evaluation with five security practitioners and five application developers con-firmed statistically significant improvements in comprehension speed, report clarity, and remediation actionability (p<0.01).
Keywords
Large Language Models, web penetration test-ing, vulnerability assessment, OWASP, CWE, reproducibility, statistical evaluation
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Downloads
References
1. G. Bacudio, X. Yuan, B. T. B. Chu, and M. Jones, “An overview of penetration testing,” Int. J. Netw. Secur. Its Appl., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 19–38, 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. S. Chaudhary, A. O’Brien, and S. Xu, “Automated post-breach penetra-tion testing through reinforcement learning,” 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. D. N. Raikar and S. Joshi, “A comprehensive literature review of artificial intelligent practices in the field of penetration testing,” in Intelligent Systems and Applications. Springer, 2023, pp. 75–85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. Z. Zhang, H. Al Hamadi, E. Damiani, C. Y. Yeun, and F. Taher, “Explainable artificial intelligence applications in cyber security: State-of-the-art in research,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 94123–94159, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. OWASP Foundation, “OWASP Top 10: The ten most critical web application security risks,” 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. MITRE, “Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE),” 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. sqlmap Development Team, “sqlmap: Automatic SQL injection and database takeover tool.” [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. N. Moustafa, B. Turnbull, and K. R. Choo, “Towards automation of vulnerability and exploitation identification in IIoT networks,” 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. F. Kamoun, F. Iqbal, M. A. Essgehir, and T. Baker, “AI and machine learning: A mixed blessing for cybersecurity,” 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. WebGoat, DVWA, and bWAPP project documentation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. G. Deng et al., “PentestGPT: Evaluating and harnessing large language models for automated penetration testing,” in Proc. 33rd USENIX Security Symp., pp. 847–864, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. L. Gioacchini, M. Mellia, I. Drago, A. Delsanto, G. Siracusano, and R. Bifulco, “AutoPenBench: Benchmarking generative agents for penetra-tion testing,” arXiv:2410.03225, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Happe and J. Cito, “Getting pwn’d by AI: Penetration testing with large language models,” in Proc. ESEC/FSE 2023, pp. 2082–2086, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. L. Derczynski, E. Galinkin, J. Martin, S. Majumdar, and N. Inie, “garak: A framework for security probing large language models,” 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- Block-Based Programming for Education: A Comprehensive Analysis of Visual Programming Environments in K-12 Learning
- Management of Academic Libraries and Client Satisfaction Towards Digital Utilization: Basis for Monitoring Library Operations in SOCCSKSARGEN Region.
- Revenue Leakages in TPA Insurance Claims and Corporate Claims: An Institutional Overview of Aster Prime Hospital, Hyderabad
- Technology and Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism: A Management Perspective
- Geospatial Distribution of Tarok Sacred Grove of Langtang North and Langtang South Local Government Areas