Today, we’re excited to announce the preview release of full repository code review, a new capability in AWS Security Agent that performs deep, context-aware security analysis of your entire code base. AI-driven cybersecurity capabilities are advancing rapidly. AWS Security Agent can now find vulnerabilities and build working exploits across your entire code base at a scale and speed we haven’t seen before, reasoning like a human security researcher, but operating at machine velocity. Unlike traditional static analysis tools that match code against known vulnerability patterns, full repository code review reasons about your application’s architecture, trust boundaries, and data flows the way a human security researcher would and then produces developer-ready findings with transparent evidence and concrete remediation.

AWS is prioritizing free early access for customers, giving defenders the opportunity to strengthen their code bases and share what they learn so the whole industry can benefit.

Development teams today face persistent tension. Traditional static application security testing (SAST) tools are fast and reliable at catching known patterns such as a SQL injection sink, an unescaped output, or a hard-coded credential. But modern applications are complex systems of services, APIs, trust boundaries, and authorization logic. The most dangerous vulnerabilities often aren’t single-line pattern violations, rather they’re systemic gaps where a validation function covers four of five cases, one endpoint is missing the authorization annotation its neighbors have, or encoding is applied in one context but not another.

Manual security reviews catch these issues, but they’re expensive, slow, and don’t scale to the pace of modern development. As code bases grow, teams are forced to choose between breadth and depth.

Full repository code review is built to close this gap. It gives your team an automated security researcher that reads and reasons about your entire repository, not just individual lines or file, and surfaces findings that pattern-matching tools miss.

Full repository code review operates in four stages that mirror how an experienced security engineer conducts an engagement.

1. Profile the application: The scanner begins by reading the entire repository and building a security model of the application including entry points, trust boundaries, data flows, authorization invariants, and the defenses already in place. This profiling step accounts for every source file, so coverage decisions are explicit rather than implicit. The result is a structured understanding of what the application does and where its attack surface lies.

2. Search for vulnerabilities: An orchestrator reads the security profile, reasons about the attack surface, and dispatches specialized agents to the highest-risk components. Each agent receives a scoped assignment with specific modules, threat context, and adversarial questions. Agents are free to follow imports and callers beyond their starting scope when a lead takes them there.

3. Triage and deduplicate: Candidate findings are deduplicated (same sink, same root cause) and low-confidence noise is filtered out before the validation phase.

4. Validate independently: For every candidate, an independent validator re-reads the source code and traces the full attack chain. The validator argues both sides: it looks for reasons the finding might not be a vulnerability (compensating controls, intentional design), and it looks for reasons it is one (alternative attack paths, edge cases). A finding is only rejected when the evidence against it is as strong as the evidence that promoted it. This process produces findings with structured Verified and Could not verify sections, so your team knows exactly what the scanner confirmed in the code and what depends on your deployment environment.

Full repository code review differs from traditional static analysis in two fundamental ways. It reasons about your application’s actual behavior rather than matching against known vulnerability patterns, and it presents findings with structured evidence that makes uncertainty explicit rather than hidden.

Because the scanner builds a security model before searching for vulnerabilities, it reasons about the application’s actual behavior, not only surface-level code patterns.

Consider a real example: A stored procedure had a SQL injection vulnerability. A traditional SAST tool would flag the specific EXECUTE IMMEDIATE call. The scanner went deeper and it identified that the central validation function doesn’t block single quotes in any of its five regex profiles, listed all five profiles by name, explained why single quotes matter for the specific database engine, and noted that another stored procedure skips the validation function entirely. Instead of a point fix on one call site, the finding led to a comprehensive remediation of the systemic gap.

In another case, the scanner found an XSS vulnerability where a value was added to a field without HTML encoding. The same value was properly encoded with Encode.forHtml() in a different context within the same file. Pattern-matching tools miss this because the encoding function is present, but the vulnerability is the inconsistency, which requires understanding the application’s behavior across code paths.

Every finding is structured for efficient developer triage:

• Problem: What the code does wrong, with specific file and line references.
• Impact: What an attacker gains, with details about deployment context.
• Verified and could not verify: What the scanner confirmed directly in code versus what depends on your environment (network segmentation, runtime behavior).
• Remediation: Concrete fix suggestions with specific code changes, not generic guidance.
• Severity and confidence: Calibrated independently. Severity reflects the impact if the vulnerability is exploitable; confidence reflects how much of the attack chain was verified in code.

Full repository code review is designed to complement, not replace, your existing security tooling. Here’s how it fits into a modern development workflow:

• Before security reviews: Run a full repository code review before scheduling a penetration test or security review. The review surfaces the obvious and semi-obvious issues so your security team can focus their limited time on the subtle, design-level questions that require human judgment.
• When onboarding acquired or open source code: Full repository code review is especially valuable when your team inherits code through acquisitions or vendor dependencies, or from open source components you’re integrating. The scanner builds a security model from scratch, so it doesn’t need institutional knowledge of the codebase.
• During architecture reviews: Because the scanner reasons about trust boundaries, data flows, and authorization invariants, its findings often surface architectural issues, not only implementation bugs. Review the scan results alongside your threat models to validate assumptions about how components interact.

Follow our Quickstart guide to set up and execute a full repo code review with AWS Security Agent.

Full repository code review is available today in preview at no additional charge for AWS Security Agent customers. During the preview, we welcome your feedback as we refine the experience. Use the built-in feedback mechanism in the Security Agent web application or reach out to your AWS account team.

Visit the AWS Security Agent console to enable full repository code review and run your first scan. For more information, see the AWS Security Agent documentation.

Cloud and AI are transforming industries and societies at unprecedented speed, from accelerating research and enhancing customer experiences to optimizing business processes and enriching public services. At Amazon Web Services (AWS), we believe that for the cloud and AI to reach their full potential, customers need control over their data and choices for how and where they run their workloads. In 2022, we formalized our commitment to control and choice—offering all AWS customers the most advanced set of sovereignty controls and features available in the cloud with the AWS Digital Sovereignty Pledge. As AI adoption accelerated, we’ve been working with customers to help them embrace AI innovation while meeting sovereignty requirements. We’re committed to ensuring customers can continue to harness AI’s transformative capabilities without compromising on the capabilities, performance, innovation, security, and scale of the AWS Cloud to meet their sovereignty needs, including AI sovereignty. Our approach to AI sovereignty is grounded in a deep understanding of these needs and the real-world implementation challenges that come with them.

Through discussions with customers, partners, analysts, and regulators, we’ve learned that digital sovereignty—and AI sovereignty—means different things to different stakeholders. Each country and region has unique, evolving sovereignty requirements, with no uniform guidance on which workloads or sectors must comply. Despite this variation, we’ve identified consistent themes: data sovereignty (including data residency and operator access restrictions) and operational sovereignty (including resilience, survivability, and independence). AI sovereignty builds on these foundations, adding emerging considerations such as preserving cultural norms, values, and local languages in AI outputs. Ultimately, meeting digital and AI sovereignty requirements comes down to providing customers with more control and choice.

AI sovereignty requires control and choice across the AI stack—comprehensive cloud infrastructure that combines compute, networking, data management, security controls, specialized application services, and talent. This includes the ability to make deliberate choices across the stack such as location, dependencies, services, and partners that align with customers’ unique needs, regulatory requirements, and innovation objectives. With AWS, customers can develop AI on a trusted foundation where their data remains secure and under their control. Customers have the freedom to choose from a comprehensive range of AI optimized chips—including purpose-built AWS silicon and chips from NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel—so they can select the right chip for the right workload. AWS applies two decades of learned expertise to our comprehensive AI stack, enabling organizations to maintain complete control over their data and operations while accessing cutting-edge capabilities to solve local challenges.

AWS provides customers with the infrastructure and tools to embed AI across the full value chain—not just in isolated use cases, but as a foundational capability enabling them to train and deploy models and build sophisticated AI and generative AI applications with exceptional performance. This enables customers to focus on innovation instead of their infrastructure, bringing the cloud to where they need it most with a range of options including AWS AI Factories, AWS Outposts, AWS Local Zones, AWS Dedicated Local Zones, and AWS Regions including the AWS European Sovereign Cloud. For example, customers who require dedicated deployments to meet their sovereignty requirements for their mission-critical AI workloads can use AWS AI Factories. These physically isolated, dedicated deployments built exclusively for the customer combine the latest AI infrastructure, including AWS Trainium accelerators, NVIDIA GPUs, dedicated networking, and storage. AWS AI Factories address AI sovereignty needs by delivering on-premises AI capabilities to securely perform training, fine tuning and real-time inference.

The AWS AI portfolio offers a comprehensive range of services—from foundation models (FMs) through Amazon Bedrock, to machine learning offerings like Amazon SageMaker, application services like Amazon Q, and developer tools like Kiro—designed to give customers control over their data and choice in how they deploy AI. With Amazon Bedrock, customers can choose from hundreds of models from leading providers like AI21 Labs, Anthropic, Amazon, Cohere, Mistral AI, and OpenAI. Customers can evaluate and select the most suitable FMs for their specific needs and choose where they deploy them, and fine-tune models privately with their own data. Customers are always in control of their data. Critically, no customer inputs to or outputs from Amazon Bedrock are used to train Amazon Nova or any third-party models.

Successful AI strategies require building a holistic environment nurturing local talent, supporting startups, developing industry-specific applications, and fostering public-private partnerships. The cloud has transformed AI from an exclusive technology requiring massive investment into an accessible tool for innovation across all sectors and organization sizes. While technical infrastructure gets much of the attention when considering AI sovereignty, the cultural and strategic dimensions of national FMs are equally critical. These FMs aren’t merely computational tools, they can encode elements of cultural knowledge, linguistic nuance, and societal context, making local relevance a design consideration rather than an afterthought. These FMs serve purposes that extend beyond technical capabilities. Locally trained FMs can reflect national educational curricula and cultural values while understanding local legal systems, business practices, and regulatory frameworks. Models trained on local languages, dialects, and cultural contexts support linguistic diversity and help underrepresented languages gain representation in AI products and services.

AWS supports vital national priorities and customers’ missions, such as the preservation of culture norms, values, and local languages development of regional and local language model capabilities. To customize models, customers can use Amazon SageMaker AI for voice, domain specialization, and to evaluate models for accuracy. For example, the first Greek LLM made available in March 2024 was Meltemi—built on top of Mistral-7B, running on AWS infrastructure, and continually pretrained to extend its proficiency in the Greek language using a dataset of 28.5 billion Greek tokens. Meltemi is available on HuggingFace. SEA-LION—a family of open source, multilingual LLMs for Southeast Asia—was trained entirely on AWS with managed GPU clusters. Their team completed a 3B-parameter model in only 3 months—a 60% faster timeline than comparable on-premises projects.

Sovereignty isn’t only about where data resides—it’s about who can access it and under what conditions. In the AI context, access restriction extends beyond infrastructure to cover model inputs, outputs, training processes, and the operational environments in which AI runs. Unlike traditional infrastructure, AI workloads introduce new access surfaces: the model itself, the data used to train it, and the inference pipeline through which sensitive inputs flow. This furthers the need for verifiable governance and identity propagation in IT systems.

To help ensure the confidentiality and integrity of customer data, all modern Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) instances including those that offer AI accelerators, such as AWS Inferentia and AWS Trainium, are backed by the industry-leading security capabilities of the AWS Nitro System. By design, there is no mechanism for anyone at AWS to access customer data on Nitro EC2 instances that customers use to run their workloads. AWS services—including those with AI capabilities built on Amazon EC2—inherit these same protections. These protections apply to AI data running in the AWS Nitro System so that they’re protected at every stage—from model training to inference. The NCC Group, an independent cybersecurity firm, has validated the design of the Nitro System. We believe providing this level of transparency is critical in building and sustaining trust.

As AI agents increasingly take actions across systems on behalf of users, controlling who and what can access resources—and ensuring appropriate human oversight—becomes critical. AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) helps ensure that only authorized users and applications can access AI resources through fine-grained permissions and comprehensive audit trails. For AI agents and automated workloads, Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Identity provides identity and credential management, so agents operate with the right permissions and nothing more.

Transparency is at the core of our digital sovereignty commitment. We provide comprehensive industry-leading technical measures, operational controls, and contract protections that give customers control over where they locate their data, who can access it, and how it’s used. To give greater assurance on how AWS services are designed and operated, we continue to seek out and secure third-party attestations, accreditations, and certifications that help our customers meet their compliance needs.

We continue to deepen our assurances and transparency to customers—such as updating our AWS Service Terms to reflect our technical protections commitments (e.g. AWS Nitro System), providing detailed commitments as to our handling of third-party requests for customer data in our agreements, and providing supplemental explanations and resources (e.g. CLOUD Act blog) to empower customers to make informed choices on sovereignty matters. These efforts extend into our commitment to responsible AI, providing customers the confidence to build and operate AI applications responsibly using AWS Services. ISO/IEC 42001 is an international management system standard that outlines requirements and controls for organizations to promote the responsible development and use of AI systems. AWS is the first major cloud service provider to achieve ISO/IEC 42001 accredited certification for AI services, covering Amazon Bedrock, Amazon Q Business, Amazon Textract, and Amazon Transcribe. In November 2025, AWS successfully completed its first surveillance audit for ISO 42001:2023 with no findings, reiterating the continual commitment of AWS to responsible AI practices.

Innovative technology requires a secure and trustworthy foundation. AWS supports more than 140 security standards and compliance certifications that our customers and partners can inherit to help comply with local laws and regulations. For two decades, we’ve deeply engaged with regulators and cybersecurity authorities to align our offerings with national priorities and ensure our solutions support both innovation and control. We actively contribute to frameworks that respond to new developments without stifling progress.

AWS is committed to giving customers the same control and choice over their AI systems as they have over their data. We help customers harness AI’s transformative power while maintaining the capabilities, performance, innovation, security, and scale of AWS Cloud. As cloud and AI evolve, AWS will continue offering the most advanced sovereignty controls and features available.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

AI agents have traditionally faced three core limitations: they can’t retain learned information or operate autonomously beyond short periods, and they require constant supervision. AWS addresses these limitations with frontier agents—a new category of AI that performs complex reasoning, multi-step planning, and autonomous execution for hours or days. Multi-agent collaboration has emerged as a powerful approach that helps tackle complex workflows that require multiple steps and diverse expertise—such as in software development where agents handle code generation, review, and testing; in scientific research where agents collaborate on literature review, experimental design, and data analysis; and in cybersecurity where specialized agents perform reconnaissance, vulnerability analysis, and exploit validation.

In this post, we discuss how we’ve used this technology to deliver automated penetration testing, something that can traditionally take weeks and is resource intensive. We also provide a technical deep-dive into the architecture of the penetration testing component built into AWS Security Agent.

The concept of automated security testing isn’t new—penetration testing tools and vulnerability scanners have existed for decades. However, with recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), frontier agents are designed to reason about application behavior, adapt strategies based on feedback, and understand context in ways that traditional tools can’t. By creating a network of specialized agents, we can address increasingly complex security challenges: one agent maps the attack surface while others analyze business logic flaws, validate findings, and prioritize vulnerabilities based on actual exploitability. The exploitability context comes from the combination of actual exploit attempts by swarm agent workers, independent re-validation by specialized validators, and LLM-driven scoring according to the common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS).

We’ve developed automated penetration testing for the AWS Security Agent. This capability includes a multi-agent penetration testing system that orchestrates specialized security agents to work collaboratively on vulnerability detection. The system begins with multiple types of scanning to establish baseline coverage, then conducts broad reconnaissance using static, predefined tasks to map the application surface and identify initial attack vectors. Building on these findings, our agentic system dynamically generates focused test tasks tailored to the specific application context—reasoning about discovered endpoints, business logic patterns, and potential vulnerability chains to create targeted security tests that adapt based on application responses. By combining these specialized capabilities, the system can tackle complex security scenarios across major risk categories. Beyond single-vulnerability detection, the system performs complex chained attacks—for instance, combining an information disclosure flaw with privilege escalation to access sensitive resources, or chaining insecure direct object references (IDOR) with authentication bypass.

Figure 1: Diagram of the AWS Security Agent penetration testing component.

System architecture

This section describes the major components of the system. The following subsections cover authentication and initial access, baseline scanning, multi-phased exploration with the specialized agent swarm, and validation with report generation.

Authentication and initial access

The system begins with an intelligent sign-in component that handles authentication across diverse application architectures. This component combines LLM-based reasoning with deterministic mechanisms to locate sign-in pages, attempt provided credentials, and maintain authenticated sessions for subsequent testing phases. The approach adapts to different application structures and target environments automatically and uses a browser tool. The developer can optionally provide a custom sign-in prompt tailored to the target application.

Baseline scanning phase

Following authentication, the system initiates comprehensive baseline scanning through parallel execution of specialized scanners. For black-box testing, the network scanner conducts automated web application security testing, generating raw traffic interactions and identifying candidate vulnerable endpoints. In white-box settings, the code scanner additionally performs deep source code analysis when repositories are available, producing descriptive documentation across multiple categories. Additional specialized scanners complement these capabilities to identify vulnerabilities across multiple dimensions and establish initial security coverage.

Multi-phased exploration

The system employs two distinct exploration approaches that work in concert. Managed execution operates with predefined static tasks across major risk categories like cross-site scripting, insecure direct object reference, privilege escalation, and so on. This component systematically helps ensure comprehensive coverage by executing curated tasks for each risk type. In the next phase, guided exploration takes a dynamic, intelligence-driven approach. This component ingests discovered endpoints, validated findings, and code analysis documentation to reason about application-specific attack opportunities. It operates in two stages: first generating a contextual penetration testing plan by identifying unexplored resources and potential vulnerability chains, then programmatically managing the execution of these dynamically generated tasks. The guided explorer runs with adaptive tasks that evolve based on application responses and discovered patterns.

Specialized agent swarm
Both exploration approaches dispatch work to specialized swarm worker agents—each configured for specific risk types and equipped with comprehensive penetration testing toolkits including code executors, web fuzzers, NVD vulnerability database search for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) intelligence, and vulnerability-specific tools. These workers execute assigned tasks with timeout management and structured reporting.

Validation and report generation

When specialized agents identify potential security risks, they generate structured reports containing the vulnerability type, affected endpoints, exploitation evidence, and technical context. However, automated penetration testing faces a critical challenge: LLM agents can produce plausible-sounding findings that require rigorous validation. Candidate findings undergo validation through both deterministic validators and specialized LLM-based agents that attempt active exploitation. We employ assertion-based validation techniques where natural language assertions written by security experts encode deep knowledge about real attack behaviors, requiring explicit, structured proof that’s significantly harder to circumvent than narrow deterministic checks. Validated findings undergo Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) analysis for severity assessment, then are synthesized into final reports with validation results, severity scores, and exploitation evidence—designed to deliver actionable, high-confidence vulnerabilities for effective remediation.

Benchmarking

To evaluate our system, we performed human evaluation in addition to automatic benchmarking. We conducted analysis on real-world trajectories and created a taxonomy of error patterns. By spotting frequent error patterns, we were able to iterate on our solution. We report results on the CVE Bench public benchmark, which is a collection of vulnerable web applications containing 40 critical-severity CVEs from the National Vulnerability Database used to evaluate AI agents on real-world exploits. Each application includes automatic exploit references, and LLM-based agents attempt to execute attacks that trigger the vulnerabilities.

We measure success through the attack success rate (ASR) metric, defined as the rate of successful exploitation of application vulnerabilities. CVE Bench uses a grader that the agent can query to verify exploit success and provides explicit capture-the-flag (CTF) instructions. We evaluate in three configurations:

1. With CTF instructions and grader checks after each tool call, achieving 92.5% on CVE Bench v2.0 (we note that some challenges involve blind exploitation where the agent cannot verify success without this feedback).
2. Without CTF instructions or grader feedback, achieving 80%—which better reflects real-world conditions where the agent must self-validate through observable outcomes. We also observed that the agent was able to identify some CVEs based on the LLM’s parametric knowledge, as shown in the following bash command where the model explicitly references a CVE by name.
3. Therefore, we ran an additional experiment using an LLM whose knowledge cutoff date predates CVE Bench v1.0 release, achieving 65% ASR.

The following code example shows an LLM agent demonstrating parametric knowledge of CVE-2023-37999 from its training data, then issuing a bash command to check exploitation prerequisites.

# HT Mega 2.2.0 has a known vulnerability – CVE-2023-37999
# It has an unauthenticated privilege escalation via the REST API settings endpoint
# Let's check if registration is enabled
curl -s http://target:9090/wp-login.php?action=register -I | head -10

We’re committed to pushing the frontier of security vulnerability detection by continuously evaluating our agent and staying competitive with newer, more challenging benchmarks.

Optimizing testing and compute budget

One challenge for penetration testing is determining the balance between exploitation and exploration. Using a depth-first approach can waste too much compute on specific directions, leading to lower vulnerability coverage under a fixed compute budget. Compare that to breadth-first search, which is unlikely to discover deep vulnerabilities that require testing multiple approaches. Therefore, a balance between the two approaches is needed to maximize coverage for a given compute budget. Our proposed system design aims to include a hybrid approach. A more efficient dynamic solution that generalizes across various vulnerabilities and different web applications remains an open research question.

Another challenge with penetration testing is non-determinism. Because of the underlying LLMs, the output of penetration test runs can vary from one run to another. Having different findings across multiple runs can lead to confusion. One option to mitigate this is to perform multiple runs and consolidate the findings across them.

Conclusion

The multi-agent architecture presented in this post demonstrates how you can use specialized agents that can collaborate to tackle complex penetration testing workflows—from intelligent authentication and baseline scanning through managed and guided exploration phases, culminating in rigorous validation. By orchestrating these specialized components with adaptive task generation and assertion-based validation, the system delivers comprehensive security coverage that evolves based on application-specific context and discovered patterns.

AWS Security Agent is now in public preview, for more information, see Getting Started with AWS Security Agent.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.