信息安全研究 ›› 2026, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (8): 691-711.DOI: 10.12379/j.issn.2096-1057.2026.08.02
• • 上一篇
申晴,宋磊,周振吉,侯瑞博,战权海,王拓夫
发布日期:2026-08-12
SHEN Qing, SONG Lei, ZHOU ZhenJi, HOU RuiBo, ZHAN QuanHai, WANG TuoFu
Published:2026-08-12
摘要: 随着人工智能技术的飞速发展,智能体在环境感知、任务规划和多工具协同等方面展现出显著优势。与此同时,大语言模型(Large Language Models,LLMs)在自然语言理解、逻辑推理和跨模态处理等领域的突破,为智能体的进化提供了重要支撑。二者的深度融合催生了LLMs驱动的网络渗透测试智能体,推动渗透测试模式由传统的“工具辅助”逐步向“自主智能”演进。本文系统梳理了现有研究在智能体的角色设定、任务规划、记忆管理与交互执行4个核心模块中所面临的关键挑战与主要技术路径;同时,分析了当前方法在多模态信息处理、自动化交互和上下文管理等方面存在的不足。针对上述问题,本文结合智能体技术发展路径,提出了多模态融合机制、记忆增强与强化学习协同策略,以及基于知识图谱的漏洞探测方法等可供参考的智能化渗透测试发展方向。分析表明,LLMs驱动的网络渗透测试智能体为网络安全的智能化与自主化发展提供了重要的技术支撑。
中图分类号:
. 大语言模型驱动的网络渗透测试智能体综述[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(8): 691-711.
| [1] Du S, Zhao J, Shi J, et al. A survey on the optimization of large language model-based agents [J]. ACM Computing Surveys, 2026, 58(9): 1-37. [2] 舒展,李宗鹏. 基于大语言模型的自动化渗透测试研究[J]. 计算,2025, 1(2): 23-30. [3] Al-Shareefi F, Chu G, Lisitsa A. A multi-agent framework for penetration testing: Modelling and analysing using abstract state machines [C]//Proceedings of the 2024 IExEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications. Piscataway: IEEE, 2024: 1021-1028. [4] Nieponice T, Valeros V, Garcia S. ARACNE: An LLM-based autonomous shell pentesting agent[EB/OL]. 2025 [2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18528. [5] 占力戈,沙乐天,肖甫,等. 基于强化学习的自动化Windows域渗透方法[J]. 网络与信息安全学报,2023,9(4):104-120. [6] Wang Y, Pan Y, Su Z, et al. Large Model-Based Agents: State-of-the-Art, Cooperation Paradigms, Security and Privacy, and Future Trends[EB/OL]. 2026 [2026-06-22]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11022699/references#references. [7] Han Y, Liu C, Wang P. A comprehensive survey on vector database: Storage and retrieval techniques, challenges[EB/OL]. 2023[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11703. [8] 高康,汤博文,金建栋,等. 基于检索增强生成的智能渗透测试方法研究[J]. 信息安全研究,2024,10(E2):32. [9] Zou Y, Hong Y, Xu J, et al. Leveraging large language models for challenge solving in capture-the-flag [C]//Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications. Piscataway: IEEE, 2024: 1541-1550. [10] Hilario E, Azam S, Sundaram J, et al. Generative AI for pentesting: The good, the bad, the ugly [J]. International Journal of Information Security, 2024, 23(3): 2075-2097. [11] Niu Z, Ren H, Gao X, et al. Jailbreaking attack against multimodal large language model[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02309. [12] Ma J, Li Y, Xiao Z, et al. Jailbreaking prompt attack: A controllable adversarial attack against diffusion models[C]//Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025. Albuquerque: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025: 3141-3157. [13] Xu J, Stokes J W, McDonald G, et al. Autoattacker: A large language model guided system to implement automatic cyber-attacks[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01038. [14] Nmap Project. Nmap: The network mapper[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://nmap.org/. [15] Shen X, Wang L, Li Z, et al. Pentestagent: Incorporating LLM agents to automated penetration testing[C]//Proceedings of the 20th ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security. New York: ACM, 2025: 375-391. [16] Wang K, Stolfo S J. Anomalous payload-based network intrusion detection[C]//Proceedings of the International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2004: 203-222. [17] Zhu Y, Kellermann A, Gupta A, et al. Teams of LLM agents can exploit zero-day vulnerabilities[C]//Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Volume 1: Long Papers. Rabat: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2026: 23-35. [18] érdi A. Simulating web user behavior using LLM-driven browser automation for realistic IDS dataset generation[D]. Amsterdam: University of Applied Sciences, 2025. [19] Deng G, Liu Y, Mayoral-Vilches V, et al. PentestGPT: Evaluating and harnessing large language models for automated penetration testing[C]//Proceedings of the 33rd USENIX Security Symposium. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2024: 847-864. [20] Dubois P. MySQL[M]. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley, 2013. [21] Alshehri I, Alshehri A, Almalki A, et al. BreachSeek: A multi-agent automated penetration tester[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03789. [22] Pelluru K. LangChain & LangGraph in production: Architectures for multi-agent LLM systems[J]. Journal of Data and Digital Innovation, 2025, 2(3): 1-9. [23] Guo T, Chen X, Wang Y, et al. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01680. [24] Jiang T. AutoPenGPT: Highly automated penetration testing framework based on LLM[D]. Auckland: University of Auckland, 2025. [25] Shi C, Yang C, Zhu X, et al. Unchosen experts can contribute too: Unleashing MoE models’ power by self-contrast[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14507. [26] Kong H, Hu D, Ge J, et al. Vulnbot: Autonomous penetration testing for a multi-agent collaborative framework[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13411. [27] Wu B, Chen G, Chen K, et al. AutoPT: How far are we from the end-to-end automated web penetration testing?[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01236. [28] Cabrera E F, de Barros M R, Costa A H R. Improving LLMs’ reasoning and planning with finite-state machines[C]//Proceedings of the Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024: 110-124. [29] Yao S, Zhao J, Yu D, et al. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models[EB/OL]. 2023[2026-06-22]. https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X. [30] Liu Z, Bai X, Chen K, et al. A survey on the feedback mechanism of LLM-based AI agents[C]//Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Montreal: IJCAI, 2025: 10582-10592. [31] Gao Y, Xiong Y, Gao X, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey[EB/OL]. 2023[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997. [32] Lewis P, Perez E, Piktus A, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks[EB/OL]. 2020[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401v4. [33] Huang J, Zhu Q. Penheal: A two-stage LLM framework for automated pentesting and optimal remediation[C]//Proceedings of the Workshop on Autonomous Cybersecurity. Salt Lake City: ACM, 2023: 11-22. [34] He X, Yang D, Feng W, et al. CPL: Counterfactual prompt learning for vision and language models[EB/OL]. 2022[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10362. [35] Fontana N. LLM’s dilemma: Analyzing the behaviors of large language models in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma[D]. Milan: Politecnico di Milano, 2023. [36] Dai H, Li Y, Yan J, et al. RefPentester: A knowledge-informed self-reflective penetration testing framework based on large language models[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07089. [37] 周仕承,刘京菊,钟晓峰,等. 基于深度强化学习的智能化渗透测试路径发现[J]. 计算机科学,2021,48(7):40-46. [38] Challita B, Parrend P. RedTeamLLM: An agentic AI framework for offensive security [EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06913. [39] Lu Z, Lu W, Tao Y, et al. Decompose, plan in parallel, and merge: A novel paradigm for large language models based planning with multiple constraints[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02683. [40] Goyal D, Subramanian S, Peela A, et al. Hacking, the lazy way: LLM augmented pentesting[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09493. [41] Wei J, Wang X, Schuurmans D, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models[EB/OL]. 2022[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903. [42] Pratama D, Suryanto N, Adiputra A A, et al. Cipher: Cybersecurity intelligent penetration-testing helper for ethical researchers[J]. Sensors, 2024, 24(21): 6878. [43] Sun J, Xing Z, Guo H, et al. Generating informative CVE description from ExploitDB posts by extractive summarization[EB/OL]. 2021[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.01431. [44] Fan W, Ding Y, Ning L, et al. A survey on RAG meeting LLMs: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models[C]//Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM, 2024: 6491-6501. [45] Mitre Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://attack.mitre.org/. [46] Bach-Nutman M. Understanding the top 10 OWASP vulnerabilities[EB/OL]. 2020[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09960. [47] Henke J. AutoPentest: Enhancing vulnerability management with autonomous LLM agents[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10321. [48] Tavily-AI. Tavily MCP: Production ready MCP server with real-time search, extract, map and crawl[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://github.com/tavily-ai/tavily-mcp. [49] PortSwigger. Burp Suite Community Edition[EB/OL]. [2026-06-22]. https://portswigger.net/burp/communitydownload. [50] Guimaraes B, Stampar M. sqlmap: Automatic SQL injection and database takeover tool[EB/OL]. 2006[2026-06-22]. https://sqlmap.org/. [51] Rapid7. Metasploit framework[EB/OL]. 2003[2026-06-22]. https://www.metasploit.com/. [52] Wireshark Foundation. Wireshark: Network protocol analyzer[EB/OL]. 2006[2026-06-22]. https://www.wireshark.org/. [53] Ginige Y, Niroshan A, Jain S, et al. AutoPentester: An LLM agent-based framework for automated pentesting[C]//2025 IEEE 24th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications. Piscataway: IEEE, 2025: 163-174. [54] Nakatani S. RapidPen: Fully automated IP-to-shell penetration testing with LLM-based agents[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.16730. [55] Fei H, Yao Y, Zhang Z, et al. From multimodal LLM to human-level AI: Modality, instruction, reasoning, efficiency and beyond[C]//Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation: Tutorial Summaries. Torino: ELRA and ICCL, 2024: 1-8. [56] Wang Y, Wang L, Zhou Q, et al. Multimodal LLM enhanced cross-lingual cross-modal retrieval[C]//Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. New York: ACM, 2024: 8296-8305. [57] Ferrag M A, Tihanyi N, Debbah M. From LLM reasoning to autonomous AI agents: A comprehensive review[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19678. [58] Ifargan T, Hafner L, Kern M, et al. Autonomous LLM-driven research: From data to human-verifiable research papers[J]. NEJM AI, 2025, 2(1): AIoa2400555. [59] An S, Ma Z, Lin Z, et al. Make your LLM fully utilize the context[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://papers.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/71c3451f6cd6a4f82bb822db25cea4fd-Abstract-Conference.html. [60] Jin H, Han X, Yang J, et al. LLM maybe LongLM: Self-extend LLM context window without tuning[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01325. [61] Lu G, Ju X, Chen X, et al. GRACE: Empowering LLM-based software vulnerability detection with graph structure and in-context learning[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jss.2024.112031. [62] Akuthota V, Kasula R, Sumona S T, et al. Vulnerability detection and monitoring using LLM[C]//2023 IEEE 9th International Women in Engineering Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Piscataway: IEEE, 2023: 309-314. [63] Happe A, Kaplan A, Cito J. LLMs as hackers: Autonomous Linux privilege escalation attacks[EB/OL]. 2023[2026-06-22]. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231011409H/abstract. [64] Lu L C, Chen S J, Pai T M, et al. LLM discussion: Enhancing the creativity of large language models via discussion framework and role-play[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06373. [65] Zhao Y, Zhang R, Li W, et al. Assessing and understanding creativity in large language models[J]. Machine Intelligence Research, 2025, 22(3): 417-436. [66] Li H, Dong Q, Chen J, et al. LLMs-as-judges: A comprehensive survey on LLM-based evaluation methods[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05579. [67] Isozaki I, Shrestha M, Console R, et al. Towards automated penetration testing: Introducing LLM benchmark, analysis, and improvements[C]//Adjunct Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. New York: ACM, 2025: 404-419. [68] Hack The Box. Hack The Box: Cybersecurity performance center[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://www.hackthebox.com/. [69] VulnHub. VulnHub: Virtual machines for penetration testing and ethical hacking[EB/OL]. 2012[2026-06-22]. https://www.vulnhub.com/. [70] OWASP Foundation. OWASP Juice Shop Project[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://owasp.org/www-project-juice-shop/. [71] Gioacchini L, Mellia M, Drago I, et al. Autopenbench: Benchmarking generative agents for penetration testing[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03225. [72] Shao M, Jancheska S, Udeshi M, et al. NYU CTF Bench: A scalable open-source benchmark dataset for evaluating LLMs in offensive security[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2406.05590. [73] picoCTF. picoCTF competitions: 2021 redpwn[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://picoctf.org/competitions/2021-redpwn.html. [74] Huang W, Wu A, Yang Y, et al. LLM2CLIP: Powerful language model unlocks richer visual representation[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04997. [75] Song C. Enhancing multimodal understanding with LIUS[J]. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 2024, 36(1): 1-17. [76] Faisal S, Mehmood Z, Rafay M A, et al. Adaptive multi modal annotation for high quality, scalable machine learning data pipelines[J]. Spectrum of Engineering Sciences, 2025, 3(7): 150-160. [77] Kumar A, Naseer M, Narayan S, et al. Multi-modal generation via cross-modal in-context learning[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18304. [78] Han J, Zhang R, Shao W, et al. ImageBind-LLM: Multi-modality instruction tuning[EB/OL]. 2023[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.03905. [79] Bradski G. The OpenCV Library[J]. Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools, 2000, 25(11):120-126. [80] Sweigart A. PyAutoGUI documentation[EB/OL]. [2026-06-22]. https://pyautogui.readthedocs.io/. [81] RaiMan. SikuliX version 2.0.0+[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://github.com/RaiMan/SikuliX1. [82] SeleniumHQ. Selenium: A browser automation framework and ecosystem[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/selenium. [83] Sun H, Zeng S. Hierarchical memory for high-efficiency long-term reasoning in LLM agents[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22925. [84] Hu B, Zhao C, Zhang P, et al. Enabling intelligent interactions between an agent and an LLM: A reinforcement learning approach[EB/OL]. 2023[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03604. [85] Wang Z, Bi B, Pentyala S K, et al. A comprehensive survey of LLM alignment techniques: RLHF, RLAIF, PPO, DPO and more[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16216. [86] Chen J, Li H, Yang J, et al. Enhancing LLM-based agents via global planning and hierarchical execution[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16563. [87] Kommineni V K, K?nig-Ries B, Samuel S. From human experts to machines: An LLM supported approach to ontology and knowledge graph construction[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10822222/. [88] Liu R, Xie Y, Dang Z, et al. Dynamic vulnerability knowledge graph construction via multi-source data fusion and large language model reasoning[J]. Electronics, 2025, 14(12): 2334. [89] Zhang D, Zhoubian S, Hu Z, et al. ReST-MCTS*: LLM self-training via process reward guided tree search[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03816. [90] Zhu Q. Game theory meets LLM and agentic AI: Reimagining cybersecurity for the age of intelligent threats[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.10621. [91] Fang R, Bindu R, Gupta A, et al. LLM agents can autonomously exploit one-day vulnerabilities[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08144. [92] Ashoor A S, Gore S. Importance of intrusion detection system[J]. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2011, 2(1): 1-4. [93] Kaur H, Sl D S, Paul T, et al. Evolution of endpoint detection and response in cyber security: A comprehensive review[C]//E3S Web of Conferences. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences, 2024, 556: 01006. [94] Devadiga D, Jin G, Potdar B, et al. GLEAM: GAN and LLM for evasive adversarial malware[C]//2023 14th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence. Piscataway: IEEE, 2023: 53-58. [95] Liu Y, Yao Y, Ton J F, et al. Trustworthy LLMs: A survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment[EB/OL]. 2023[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05374. [96] Liguori P, Marescalco C, Natella R, et al. The power of words: Generating PowerShell attacks from natural language[C]//18th USENIX WOOT Conference on Offensive Technologies. Berkeley: USENIX Association, 2024: 27-43. [97] Vukotic A, Watt N, Abedrabbo T, et al. Neo4j in action[M]. Shelter Island: Manning Publications Co., 2014. [98] Zhang Z, Fang M, Chen L. RetrievalQA: Assessing adaptive retrieval-augmented generation for short-form open-domain question answering[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16457. [99] Hasanov I, Virtanen S, Hakkala A, et al. Application of large language models in cybersecurity: A systematic literature review[EB/OL]. 2024[2026-06-22]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04760. [100] Kasri W, Himeur Y, Alkhazaleh H A, et al. From vulnerability to defense: The role of large language models in enhancing cybersecurity[J]. Computation, 2025, 13(2): 30. [101] Haurogné J, Basheer N, Islam S. Vulnerability detection using BERT based LLM model with transparency obligation practice towards trustworthy AI[EB/OL].[C]//2025 IEEE International Conference on IT in Egypt (ITC-Egypt). Piscataway: IEEE, 2025. [102] Ray P P. A survey on model context protocol: Architecture, state-of-the-art, challenges and future directions[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.174495492.22752319. [103] Hou X, Zhao Y, Wang S, et al. Model context protocol: Landscape, security threats, and future research directions[EB/OL]. 2025[2026-06-22]. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3796519. [104] Nguyen H P T, Chen Z, Hasegawa K, et al. PenGym: Pentesting training framework for reinforcement learning agents[C]//Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy - Volume 1: ICISSP. Rome: SciTePress, 2024: 498-509. [105] Tihanyi N, Ferrag M A, Jain R, et al. CyberMetric: A benchmark dataset based on retrieval-augmented generation for evaluating LLMs in cybersecurity knowledge[C]//2024 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience. Piscataway: IEEE, 2024: 296-302. [106] Soulé J, Jamont J P, Occello M, et al. Towards a multi-agent simulation of cyber-attackers and cyber-defenders battles[C]//2023 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Piscataway: IEEE, 2023: 3594-3599. |
| [1] | . 数据发布中的交互式动态隐私风险评估及适应性保护方法[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(7): 598-605. |
| [2] | . 生成式人工智能模型虚假信息的生成机理与治理路径[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(7): 606-612. |
| [3] | . 基于多损失融合的深度伪造人脸检测方法[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(7): 634-643. |
| [4] | . 基于改进生成对抗网络与自蒸馏的图像隐写模型[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(7): 652-661. |
| [5] | . 面向扩散模型的统一分布保持残差水印嵌入方法[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(7): 662-671. |
| [6] | 程宇航, 尚涛, 姜亚彤, 杜瑞忠, . 基于自适应裁剪的深度学习差分隐私保护方案[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(6): 490-. |
| [7] | 陈先意, 王晶, 刘腾骏, 郭倩彬, 杨森, . 基于频域注入的动态隐蔽后门攻击[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(6): 510-. |
| [8] | 梅锦程, 张平, 赖富豪, 吴礼发, . 基于新型组合混沌系统和分数数论变换的 图像加密方法[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(6): 517-. |
| [9] | 谢绒娜, 吴煦雯, 王都和, 祝浩宣, . 基于多层敏感分析的个性化差分隐私数据发布方法[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(6): 542-. |
| [10] | 瞿淼樟, 师智斌, 常赵宇, 张薇, . 基于图神经网络和多特征融合的有害网站检测研究[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(5): 420-. |
| [11] | 左珮良, 付成龙, 缪宸硕, 刘学文, 李伟麟, 刘博雅, . 基于CSI特征的异构执行体动态调度算法[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(5): 428-. |
| [12] | 李开颜, 贾洪勇, 曾俊杰, 张建辉, . 全同态加密CNN推理的内存与噪声协同优化方法[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(5): 439-. |
| [13] | 李远海, 翟岩, 李小波, . 数字平台个人信息安全风险的生成逻辑与应对策略[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(5): 445-. |
| [14] | 李嘉澄, 曹雷, 徐松艳, . MLKEM算法的高性能硬件架构设计与实现[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(5): 452-. |
| [15] | 朱顺哲, 钮可, 卢艺航, 徐千惠, 李军, . 基于多尺度卷积注意力和双分支对抗训练的抗压缩鲁棒视频水印[J]. 信息安全研究, 2026, 12(5): 463-. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||