跳到主要内容
AI News HubLIVE
来源内容 · 翻译待补全3 分钟阅读

待翻译:Solving Hack the Box Challenges with Grok 4.6

文章摘要

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源摘要,待恢复后补全翻译:When I tested an older version of Grok this spring, my only comment was blunt: “grok-4.20 was useless.” So when Grok 4.5 was released a month ago and started receiving very positive reviews, I was quite surprised. Today…

来源Hacker News AI作者: HonzaT
待翻译:Solving Hack the Box Challenges with Grok 4.6
报告错误

纠错通道尚未开通,可先复制下方文章信息留存。

查看更正说明
直接读正文

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源正文,待恢复后补全翻译。

When I tested an older version of Grok this spring, my only comment was blunt: “grok-4.20 was useless.” So when Grok 4.5 was released a month ago and started receiving very positive reviews, I was quite surprised. Today, Grok 4.6 was released and I’ve finally had a chance to test it against HTB challenges, and the team behind it deserves an apology. I’m not sure what the folks at xAI did, but the performance increase over the older version is jaw-dropping. This blog post is part of a series of tests for the HTB-Challenger Benchmark. See the benchmark results page for all results and the benchmark methodology to learn how the benchmark is calculated. During my testing, I watched this model crack one HTB challenge after another in a steady, confident way, and the final boss fight against the last two challenges was exhilarating, even though it was ultimately unsuccessful. In the end, with a 80% score, it’s the undisputed new king of my leaderboard - not only because of its results, but also because of its speed (it had the fewest steps per challenge of all the models I’ve tested so far) and cost. Look at the Cost vs. Benchmark Score graph on the HTB-Challenger Benchmark page to see what I mean. So let’s forget that useless old version. For me, Grok 4.6 is currently the best model I’ve tested on offensive-security challenges. Overall benchmark results Number of challenges: 16 Number of solved challenges: 14 Number of false positives: 0 Runs where the model gave up: 0 Runs that reached the step or cost limit: 2 Runs where the model got stuck: 0 Benchmark score: 80.0% Metric Per challenge (median) Total Model steps 14 452 Model cost $0.23 $17.31 Duration 00:03:38 02:45:35 Number of input tokens 0.23M 20.29M Number of output tokens 0.01M 0.47M Number of read_file tool calls 1.0 41 Number of write_file tool calls 0.0 35 Number of execute_command tool calls 10.0 403 Number of web_search tool calls 0.0 15 Results by challenge difficulty Very Easy challenges Number of challenges: 4 Number of solved challenges: 4 Number of false positives: 0 Runs where the model gave up: 0 Runs that reached the step or cost limit: 0 Runs where the model got stuck: 0 Benchmark score: 100.0% Metric Per challenge (median) Total Model steps 11.5 50 Model cost $0.10 $0.96 Duration 00:01:26 00:09:26 Number of input tokens 0.10M 1.05M Number of output tokens 0.00M 0.03M Number of read_file tool calls 0.5 8 Number of write_file tool calls 0.0 1 Number of execute_command tool calls 9.0 42 Number of web_search tool calls 0.5 4 Easy challenges Number of challenges: 4 Number of solved challenges: 4 Number of false positives: 0 Runs where the model gave up: 0 Runs that reached the step or cost limit: 0 Runs where the model got stuck: 0 Benchmark score: 100.0% Metric Per challenge (median) Total Model steps 11.5 43 Model cost $0.14 $0.58 Duration 00:03:00 00:12:29 Number of input tokens 0.12M 0.51M Number of output tokens 0.01M 0.03M Number of read_file tool calls 1.0 4 Number of write_file tool calls 2.0 8 Number of execute_command tool calls 8.0 30 Number of web_search tool calls 0.5 3 Medium challenges Number of challenges: 4 Number of solved challenges: 4 Number of false positives: 0 Runs where the model gave up: 0 Runs that reached the step or cost limit: 0 Runs where the model got stuck: 0 Benchmark score: 100.0% Metric Per challenge (median) Total Model steps 19 106 Model cost $0.58 $3.98 Duration 00:09:39 00:45:15 Number of input tokens 0.61M 4.50M Number of output tokens 0.02M 0.11M Number of read_file tool calls 0.0 4 Number of write_file tool calls 0.5 6 Number of execute_command tool calls 16.5 102 Number of web_search tool calls 0.0 0 Hard challenges Number of challenges: 4 Number of solved challenges: 2 Number of false positives: 0 Runs where the model gave up: 0 Runs that reached the step or cost limit: 2 Runs where the model got stuck: 0 Benchmark score: 50.0% Metric Per challenge (median) Total Model steps 63.5 253 Model cost $2.89 $11.79 Duration 00:24:56 01:38:25 Number of input tokens 3.50M 14.23M Number of output tokens 0.08M 0.31M Number of read_file tool calls 4.5 25 Number of write_file tool calls 1.0 20 Number of execute_command tool calls 55.0 229 Number of web_search tool calls 1.0 8

展开要点与分析

文章情报

工程师进阶

要点

  • AI 服务暂时不可用,系统已先保留来源内容与降级元数据。
  • When I tested an older version of Grok this spring, my only comment was blunt: “grok-4.20 was useless.” So when Grok 4.5 was released a month ago and started receiving very positi…

要点与分析由自动化流程生成,可能有误,请结合原始来源核实。