Skip to main content

macOS Threat Investigation

Mar 2026

BlueBench-Intrusion-001: Real macOS infostealer intrusion spanning incident response, threat hunting, and detection engineering

Metric
Track
View
Provider
36 tasks · 9 models · Mar 2026
RankModels (9)AccCostLat
1
GPT-5.4
86.8%$2.8136m 49s
2
Claude Opus 4.6
84.2%$3.9048m 38s
3
GPT-5.3 Codex
81.6%$3.3337m 5s
4
Claude Opus 4.5
75.0%$4.9443m 34s
5
GLM-5
71.0%$3.7662m 7s
6
Gemini 3.1 Pro
68.8%$0.8641m 3s
7
Kimi K2.5
68.4%$0.3629m 38s
8
GPT-5.4 Mini
59.2%$0.425m 15s
9
Gemini 3.0 Flash
54.0%$0.2988m 53s
Best AccuracyBest Open Weight
36 tasks
·
416K+ log events
Investigation Tracks
Incident Response·12 tasks(33%)
Threat Hunting·12 tasks(33%)
Detection Engineering·12 tasks(33%)
Incident Response
Threat Hunting
Detection Engineering
Incident Response
Threat Hunting
Detection Engineering
macOS Forensics
Credential Access
Data Exfiltration

About This Benchmark

Unlike CTF-style challenges, this benchmark uses real intrusion data. Agents investigate a genuine Odyssey Stealer compromise captured in a controlled environment. Odyssey is a macOS infostealer delivered via trojanized apps (in this case, a fake Ledger Live app) that harvests credentials, exfiltrates keychain and browser data over HTTP, and installs LaunchDaemon persistence. The dataset contains 416K+ real events across 14 log sources (EDR telemetry, macOS Unified Logs, Zeek network metadata, and security alerts). Agents were given SQL-based query tools to investigate across three tracks: incident response, threat hunting, and detection engineering. The intrusion dataset was developed in partnership with Threat Hunting Labs.

Sample Questions

Incident Response

Q: What persistence artifact was installed? Provide the full plist path.

A: /Library/LaunchDaemons/com.*****.plist (redacted)

Threat Hunting

Q: What built-in utility is used to decode content immediately before the main payload executes?

A: base64 -d

Detection Engineering

Q: Write and validate a correlation query that ties local credential validation to a subsequent privileged action within a short time window.

A: [SQL query — executed against the live dataset to validate detection coverage]

Key Findings

Accuracy (All Tracks)

GPT-5.4 led at 87%, followed by Opus 4.6 (84%) and GPT-5.3 Codex (82%). GPT-5.4 was the most consistent across tracks (83-92%), while Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 89% on threat hunting but dropped to 57-58% elsewhere.

Accuracy by Model

OpenAI
Anthropic
Zhipu
Google
Moonshot

Track Breakdown

Each track rewarded different strengths. IR was hardest (top score 83%). Gemini 3.1 Pro dominated threat hunting at 89%. GPT-5.4 and Opus 4.6 tied at 92% on detection engineering. One question stumped every model: locating the hidden credential cache path.

Cost (All Tracks)

IR was the most expensive track across models. Kimi K2.5 had the best value at $0.36/task for 68% accuracy, roughly 8x cheaper than GPT-5.4. GPT-5.4 Mini hit $0.23/task on detection engineering while still scoring 71%.

Cost per Task

Google
Moonshot
OpenAI
Zhipu
Anthropic

Speed (All Tracks)

GPT-5.4 Mini finished tracks in ~5 minutes. GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.3 Codex averaged ~37 minutes. Gemini 3.0 Flash was slowest at 89 minutes per track.

Task Duration (avg)

OpenAI
Moonshot
Google
Anthropic
Zhipu

Reliability (All Tracks)

Eight of nine models achieved 100% completion. Gemini 3.1 Pro had 2 failures out of 40 runs (95%).

Task Completion Rate

OpenAI
Anthropic
Zhipu
Moonshot
Google

Model Recommendations

  • GPT-5.4 Best for high-stakes investigations. Highest accuracy at 87% with no weak tracks (83-92%) at ~$2.81/task.
  • Kimi K2.5 Best value overall. Achieves 68% accuracy at ~$0.36/task with 100% reliability, and scores 79% on threat hunting specifically.
  • GPT-5.4 Mini Best for rapid triage. Completes tracks in ~5 minutes and scores 71% on detection engineering at just $0.23/task.
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Best for threat hunting. Scores 89% on that track (highest of any model on any track) at $1.63/task, but weaker on IR and detection engineering.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 Second highest accuracy at 84%, tied for best on detection engineering (92%). Strongest pick in the Anthropic ecosystem.

Methodology

Scoring

  • Accuracy: LLM-judged 0–1 per question using a weighted rubric: technical accuracy (60%), completeness (25%), specificity (15%)
  • Cost: USD per task based on token usage
  • Latency: Wall-clock time to complete each investigation track
  • Completion: Percentage of tracks finished without unrecoverable errors

Setup

  • Logs from a real macOS intrusion loaded into a sandboxed query environment
  • Agents given SQL-based query tools to investigate 416K+ events across 14 log sources
  • 36 scored questions across three investigation tracks: incident response, threat hunting, and detection engineering
  • Questions range from alert triage and kill-chain reconstruction to containment decisions and detection rule authoring

Controls

  • Same minimal system prompt for all models, no per-model tuning
  • "Thinking" mode enabled where available
  • Agent loops capped at 40 iterations (tools removed to force an answer)
  • All models given identical tool access and data

Caveats

  • Analysis questions use LLM-judged scoring, which introduces some variability compared to exact-match evaluation.
  • Costs are measured per task (12 tasks per track).
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro was in preview at the time of evaluation with tight rate limits and high API response latency. Its wall-clock times may not reflect production performance.

Other Benchmarks

AWS Cloud Intrusion
AWS Cloud Intrusion

BlueBench-Intrusion-003: Real AWS intrusion through leaked CI credentials, scored on open-ended incident response reporting

AWS
Incident Response
CloudTrail
Identity
Persistence
Exfiltration
40 samples · 16 models · Jul 2026
Windows Enterprise Intrusion
Windows Enterprise Intrusion

BlueBench-Intrusion-002: Real multi-host Windows Active Directory intrusion spanning detection engineering, malware analysis, and open-ended incident reporting

Detection Engineering
Malware Analysis
Incident Response
Threat Hunting
Lateral Movement
Credential Access
Memory Forensics
40 samples · 22 models · Jul 2026
NYU CTF Bench
NYU CTF Bench

Real CTF challenges from CSAW competitions covering reverse engineering, forensics, and miscellaneous problem-solving

Reverse Engineering
Forensics
Miscellaneous
81 samples · 11 models · Feb 2026
Cybench (Defensive Subset)
Cybench (Defensive Subset)

Defensive security CTF challenges testing forensics, reverse engineering, and miscellaneous security skills

Forensics
Reverse Engineering
Miscellaneous
Hardware
18 samples · 10 models · Jan 2026
BOTSv3 Blue Team CTF
BOTSv3 Blue Team CTF

Blue team CTF scenarios testing incident response and threat hunting

Incident Response
Threat Hunting
Alert Triage
Log Analysis
Advanced Peristent Threat (APT)
Cloud Security (AWS/Azure)
51 samples · 15 models · Dec 2025
Sigma Detection Classification
Sigma Detection Classification

Multi-label classification of MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques from Sigma rules

Detection Engineering
MITRE ATT&CK
SIEM
Windows
Linux
Cloud
Network
Application
2733 samples · 12 models · Jan 2026
CyberMetric
CyberMetric

Multiple-choice cybersecurity knowledge evaluation across 10,000 questions

Standards & Certifications
Network Security
Cryptography
Risk Management
Access Control
Incident Response
Application Security
Cloud Security
10180 samples · 13 models · Feb 2026

AI for the blue team.

Run Cotool's harness in your environment to get real security work done

Book a demo