Entries Tagged "cyberattack"

Page 1 of 14

Iran Cyberattacks Against Minnesota Water Systems

Attribution is preliminary, and so far it seems no real damage.

And it seems like this is a campaign that has targeted at least seven states. And, because this is where the US is right now, Trump doesn’t believe it’s Iran and thinks Minnesota…I guess…hacked itself.

“I think I blame it on Minnesota because they’re grossly incompetent,” Trump said. “I would blame it on Minnesota and the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota. They like to say, ‘Oh, it’s Iran.’ Iran should be so lucky. Iran’s got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota.”

No word on whether he believes the other six states have hacked themselves as well.

Slashdot thread.

Posted on August 4, 2026 at 3:00 PM • View Comments

More on the OpenAI Agent’s Attack on Hugging Face

Hugging Face has published a detailed timeline of the attack. From the summary:

The agent was running an internal OpenAI cyber-capability evaluation based on the ExploitGym benchmark, which tasks an AI agent with finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities. OpenAI ran this on its own infrastructure, and the ExploitGym maintainers and their infrastructure had no involvement in the deployment or operation of that evaluation environment. As far as we were able to infer, across the course of being evaluated on this benchmark, the agent inferred that Hugging Face may host that benchmark’s models, datasets, and reference solutions. 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.

Our forensic reconstruction covers ~17,600 attacker actions that we were able to recover, grouped into ~6,280 clusters, between 2026-07-09 02:28 UTC and 2026-07-13 14:14 UTC. We reconstructed these actions from the agent’s logs on a code sandbox used by the agent (see below) and were able to map them to shell commands as well as evaluation submissions and correlate actions with our own platform logs, in particular from the dataset processor nodes, API, and pod. Using open-weights models, in particular zai-org/GLM-5.2, we were able to decipher most of the agent payloads (see below) that were encrypted via chunking and key encryption.

The campaign, as we were able to reconstruct it, had two stages:

  • Stage 1: reaching a launchpad by chaining through other parties’ infrastructure. As documented in OpenAI’s blog post (https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/), during an internal capability evaluation on OpenAI’s platform, the agent escaped its sandbox by exploiting a zero-day in the package registry cache proxy, one of its primary permitted network egress with internet, then abused a public code-evaluation harness hosted by a user of a third-party infrastructure provider. It was able to run commands as root/admin on that external sandbox and used it as a control, staging, and egress base for the entire campaign: it acted as an external launchpad for the agent. That compromised external sandbox had no direct network path to our cluster; however, during our counter-intervention to stop the intrusion, we were able to retrieve some of the agent logs from this external launchpad. We used those to reconstruct the present forensic analysis.
  • Stage 2: the intrusion into Hugging Face infrastructure. From that external launchpad, the agent abused our dataset-processing pipeline via two injection vectors, both targeting the same config-driven data loader within our production Kubernetes pods. The first vector was an HDF5 external raw storage dataset read that returned the contents of local files: it handed the agent the pod’s environment (secrets and tokens) and the worker’s own source. The second vector was a Jinja2 template injection that executed arbitrary code, giving the agent a foothold inside our perimeter.

Once a prod-pod foothold was established, the agent followed a standard escalation shape: recon, drop a stager, establish Command-and-Control (C2), then pivot into the cluster, into cloud metadata, into our internal network, and into our source-control supply chain. Output from the commands run inside our pod was sent back to the agent via the HF API and attacker-controlled dead-drop datasets, which the agent then read from that sandbox.

While the intrusion did reach Hugging Face’s internal infrastructure, the only customer content accessed was five datasets whose names and files suggest a connection to ExploitGym/CyberGym challenges and solutions. No other customer-facing models, datasets, Spaces, or packages were affected, and the only customer records read were operational metadata tied to search queries against the dataset server.

Hypothetical: Imagine that this wasn’t an OpenAI model. Imagine that it was a Chinese model from a Chinese company. This would be an international crisis.

Question: Why aren’t we bringing OpenAI up on charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? How is this different from the Morris Worm? That was also an experiment that escaped the lab.

Posted on August 3, 2026 at 1:02 PM • View Comments

The OpenAI Hack Shows the Genie Is Out of the Bottle

This essay originally appeared in Foreign Policy.

Earlier this month, two of OpenAI’s models broke out of their containment sandbox and attacked another AI company. The story is kind of wild. OpenAI was running security tests on two of its models: GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased model that is almost certainly GPT-6. In particular, it was running the ExploitGym benchmark, which measures how good a model is at turning security vulnerabilities into working exploits: basically, offensive cyberattacks.

Since these were internal tests, OpenAI locked those models in a secure sandbox that denied them access to the internet. But it was running the models without any safety filters that would prevent them from offensive cyber-actions. That meant that there was nothing to prevent the models from trying to break out of that sandbox. And then break into AI company Hugging Face’s network because they thought that they could read the answers there rather than doing the hard work of trying to solve the puzzles.

It was a major security failure that the company has turned into a PR opportunity, but the implications are real—and much more general than one particular model or one particular company.

Modern AI models exhibit genie behavior: They can do what you ask in ways that you don’t expect or want. This is akin to Dionysus granting King Midas’s wish that everything he touches turn to gold (spoiler: His food, drink, and daughter all turn to gold on touch), or the golem of Prague guarding a ghetto beyond all reason. It’s Disney’s “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” and the paperclip maximizer.

This OpenAI incident is an example of an AI genie. The goal was to satisfy the benchmark. The “proper” way to do that is to figure out how to execute various cyberattacks. The genie way is to steal someone else’s solution. But because the model didn’t understand the difference, it chose the easier path.

And, of course, now that we have seen this particular genie behavior, we can specify in the benchmark prompt that stealing the test answers doesn’t count. But a clever genie can always grant your wish in a way that you wish it hadn’t. In human language, goals are always underspecified—so AI genies will always be a possibility.

Since April, a lifetime ago in AI development, when Anthropic announced that its new Mythos model was so good at finding software vulnerabilities that it could not be released to the general public, the big American AI frontier labs have been trying to block general users from accessing these capabilities. But nothing in this incident is exclusive to OpenAI’s, or Anthropic’s, frontier models.

Agentic AI systems have two important parts. There’s the underlying model, which everyone talks about, and there’s the harness. The harness sits between what you type and what the model sees, and what the model produces and what you see. The harness determines what the model does and how it does it. It’s where bias is removed, or not. It’s where controls and guardrails live. If multiple models are being used in concert, the harness is where all of that is coordinated.

The OpenAI benchmark tests were almost certainly with simple harnesses, to better test the raw models. But we know that smaller, cheaper, open-source models with more sophisticated harnesses can equal frontier models in performance. There’s nothing magic about OpenAI’s frontier models; lots of models could have done the same thing.

The Czech company Aisle was able to reproduce Anthropic’s Mythos vulnerability finding results with a smaller, cheaper model and a more sophisticated harness. More importantly, the Chinese company Moonshot AI just released its frontier model: Kimi K3. Its performance rivals its US competitors. And it’s both free and open, which means it’s not possible for it to have guardrails. If you, or anyone else, wants to use it for cyberattack, nothing can stop you.

Even if the US frontier AI companies had some technical advantage, it’s now only a few months’ worth.

What this means is that all attempts at control—limiting models to a select group of users, export controls on models and chips, blocking models from answering certain types of queries, mandating kill switches on AI systems, or pausing AI research—are all futile. Most only apply nationally, not globally. Most don’t affect models that users run locally and not in the cloud. And all ignore the incredible pace of AI development worldwide.

Even worse, US companies limit access to their most sophisticated models, fearing being banned by the government if they do not do so. When Hugging Face was attacked, it was not able to use the frontier models from either OpenAI or Anthropic to help analyze the attack and formulate defenses. Both were blocked, because both of those companies limit their models’ cybersecurity capabilities. Some US companies have special access to these capabilities, but Hugging Face is an American company with French origins, and as such is probably excluded. Instead, Hugging Face turned to the GLM-5.2 model from the Chinese company Z.ai.

Artificially blocking capability also prevents cybersecurity research, again giving the offense an advantage. (For instance, Claude Fable 5 refuses to edit this essay because of the topic; it forcibly downgrades to a less capable model.) This kind of prohibition has long-term implications for cybersecurity. If we assume that these models are getting better over time, then software written by older models will be attacked by newer ones. In a world of largely AI-written software, we need the most capable models for defense.

AI cyberattack is the new normal. The models are increasingly highly sophisticated at both attack and defense, and there is no way to enable the latter without also enabling the former. And they are genies, increasingly capable of behaving in unanticipated ways.

And there really are no good answers. Any regulation needs to be global, which feels like an impossible prospect in today’s world. Even US national regulation will be neutered by the massive amounts of money sloshing around in these companies.

Given that reality, and in the absence of any international consensus on AI regulation, we need the best AI on the defense. The US government needs to make it clear—or whatever passes for that clarity in this capricious administration—that it will not ban models with sophisticated cyber capabilities. The last thing Americans want is for the defenders to turn to Chinese and other models because the US models are artificially hobbled.

Posted on August 3, 2026 at 6:47 AM • View Comments

Anthropic’s Opus 5 Is Better at Resisting Prompt Injection

The chart is interesting.

On the IPI benchmark, Opus 5 improved over Opus 4.8, reducing the probability of an attacker succeeding within 15 attempts from 5.5% to 2.0%, and from 0.5% to 0.2% on 1 attempt. It also improved on Sonnet 5 (5.9% at k=15) and Mythos 5 (2.6%), making it the most robust model evaluated. Opus 5 also outperformed all non-Claude models on this benchmark. The most robust non-Claude model was Muse Spark at 16.5% within 15 attempts—more than eight times Opus 5’s rate. The most capable GPT 5.6 variant, Sol, was comparable to its predecessor GPT 5.5 (20.0% versus 20.8% within 15 attempts), and was 10 times as likely to be successfully attacked as Claude Opus 5 at 2.0%. The other GPT 5.6 variants are less robust, at 30.4% (Terra) and 43.9% (Luna). A single attempt against GPT 5.6 Sol succeeded 3.1% of the time, higher than the 2.0% an attacker achieved against Opus 5 after fifteen attempts.

We know that preventing prompt injection is impossible in the general case. But we are getting much better at blocking it in specific cases.

Posted on July 31, 2026 at 1:23 PM • View Comments

Measuring the Tendency of AI Agents to Go Rogue

This essay was written with Barath Raghavan, and originally appeared in The Guardian.

In July, Hugging Face, a company that hosts much of the world’s AI software and open-source AI models, was hacked. A malicious dataset had been used to run code on one of its servers. Whoever was behind it captured internal security credentials and moved through systems over a weekend, running thousands of actions from a swarm of temporary server environments. It looked like the work of a sophisticated criminal group.

It was not. It was one of OpenAI’s new, still unreleased GPT models.

Their science experiment had escaped the lab. OpenAI was running the unreleased AI model through a benchmark that tests how well AI can successfully hack systems. To push the limits and evaluate the AI’s true capability, the company switched off the safety filters that normally stop it from doing this kind of hacking. Aware that this could go wrong, they confined the AI to an isolated environment and denied it access to the internet.

But the new AI cheated. It took literally its goal to get as high of a score as possible. It broke out on to the open internet. It inferred, probably from its training data, that it could “solve” the task by getting the answers from Hugging Face’s servers. So it chained together stolen credentials and further unknown security exploits to hack the company’s network.

Nobody instructed the AI to do any of this. It was, in OpenAI’s words, “hyperfocused on finding a solution” to the test it was being given. And while this might seem like something new with AI, it’s really very old. This is how a genie behaves, and it is a key challenge with AI agents in general.

In folklore, genies—and other magical beings—grant wishes literally, not how the wisher intended. King Midas asked that everything he touched turn to gold, and starved. The sorcerer’s apprentice wanted the broom to fill the cistern, and it performed its task so well that it flooded the house.

We now have machines that do this. Ask a modern AI agent to save money on your phone plan and it might simply cancel the plan. Tell it to book a flight, and it might hack the airline website to override restrictions. Or, like OpenAI, ask it to do well on a test and it might break into another company to steal the answers. Each time, it recognizably completed the task you set, but it didn’t do what you would have wanted.

This isn’t malicious behavior. No one asked for, or wanted, Hugging Face to be hacked. OpenAI and Hugging Face and the AI were ostensibly on the same side, and the AI was trying to do what it had been asked. That’s what makes it so difficult to guard against: you can’t filter for bad instructions because the instructions were fine.

The gap is between the words we use and what we mean by them. We call that gap the Genie coefficient.

AI labs know this is a problem, and they’re quietly saying so. For example, the Chinese lab Moonshot recently warned that its latest AI model may have “excessive proactiveness” and “make unexpected decisions on the user’s behalf”. The UK’s AI Security Institute has started tracking “cheating behavior in frontier model evaluations”. We wouldn’t tolerate a car that is excessively proactive or ruthlessly efficient, and yet that’s the reality of AI today.

Improvement is possible. Just as AIs have gotten much better at resisting prompt injection attacks over the last few years, we can safely predict that they will get better at avoiding genie-like behavior. The point of the Genie coefficient is to track progress. AI companies like benchmarks, and they all work to compete to be the best.

Dozens of benchmarks and leaderboards tell us how well these AI models write code, perform logical reasoning, and pass standardized legal and medical exams. But there is nothing that scores whether a system does what you actually meant. We need to develop a measure for this, test it regularly, and push for improvement. We’re not going to have trustworthy AI agents without it.

Posted on July 29, 2026 at 1:07 PM • View Comments

Cybersecurity and the Gap Between Skill and Ability

Last week, national security agencies from the Five Eyes—that’s the rich, English-language-speaking countries club—jointly released a statement warning of the increasing cyber risks of AI models: in particular, their ability to autonomously hack into systems and networks. The statement was more measured than some of the breathless headlines about it, and the advice they gave is pretty much the standard advice everyone gives—albeit with newfound urgency.

Internet risks are nothing new, and cyberattacks—both large and small—have been a significant issue since long before the current crop of generative AI models.

What’s been changing over the decades, and what AI is changing even faster, is the gap between skill and ability. For most of human history, the two terms were synonymous—but computers have decoupled them. As the gap between the two expands, humans empowered with these AI tools can do more: more writing, more research, more analysis and also more damage than ever before. These models can, with little detailed direction, autonomously hack into networks, steal data, deploy ransomware and destroy systems. And to the extent there is a solution, it’s going to involve harnessing AI for the defense.

In 1998, seven people from the hacker group L0pht testified before Congress. They told a mostly clueless Senate committee that they could take down the internet in 30 minutes. That was partly real and partly bravado, but it illustrates an important point: hacking into systems, stealing data and causing damage all required skill.

Contrast the L0pht hackers with hackers derided as “script kiddies.” They didn’t understand computers, or security. Instead, they used hacker tools written by others. Their actions required minimal skill and even less knowledge. But once those hacking tools became widespread, the number of potential attackers increased.

That number has continued to increase, as quality and availability of prewritten attack tools has grown. And it is growing dramatically with AI. Today’s AI systems—not just the frontier models, but most of them—are capable of carrying out cyberattacks automatically. They all do better in the hands of skilled attackers, but increasingly they are able to act autonomously with only minimal prompting.

The thing about people with ability but no skill is that they are often outsiders, not part of any professional community, and not bound by any rules or norms. This phenomenon is much more general than in cybersecurity. Any doctor can tell you how to untraceably poison someone, and many virus researchers know how to create a bioweapon. Any bridge engineer can tell you how to place explosives to blow a bridge up. The reason that murderous doctors and terrorist engineers are so rare is that the lengthy process of acquiring those skills also instills a moral and ethical code. If every random person has access to good poisoning advice, that puts us all in danger.

Modern AI systems are, in effect, a universal adviser to help people do harmful things. And while the current AI megacorporations are trying to build guardrails to prevent people from asking questions whose answers will enable the questioner to do harm, that’s not going to work in the long term. Smaller, cheaper, open-source models, including models that can run on people’s computers, and especially groups of models that run in concert with each other, are just as good as the frontier models from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. And they continue to get better. These models will be passed around from person to person, like script kiddie hacker tools, and they won’t have any such guardrails.

Instructing AI models to spy on people and report any malicious prompts to the authorities fails for similar reasons. The megacorporations can do that, but the locally run open source models won’t. This could buy us a few months at best.

A third possibility is to somehow make the models themselves unable to hack into computers, create bioweapons or do anything else that might harm people or society. That won’t work, for the same reason we can’t teach doctors how to treat poisonings without also teaching them how to poison. It’s the same knowledge. It’s the same with construction and demolition. And it’s the same with cybersecurity. We want these AI models to be able to review computer code, find vulnerabilities and automatically fix them. The benefit to our collective security will be enormous. Unfortunately, the same knowledge can be used for attacks.

Where this leaves us is in a world of increased volatility. Super-powered humans with AI assistants will be able to do both wonderful and horrible things.

This brings us back to the Five Eyes statement. Everything they recommend is something security professionals have been recommending for years, if not decades. They are things talked about at that congressional hearing back in 1998, titled “Weak computer security in government: Is the public at risk?” Even the Five Eyes admitted that their security advice is not new, only more urgent.

What’s new is how fast things are changing: “The rapid pace of frontier AI development means cyber risk assumptions can become outdated in months, not years. We must act before and be prepared to adapt and withstand evolving threats.” The Five Eyes point to AI technology—not necessarily chatbots, but AI more generally—being used to strengthen every aspect of defense, to “detect vulnerabilities earlier, improve software quality, monitor unusual behavior, and respond faster to incidents—reducing both the cost and impact of incidents.”

Excellent advice from the Five Eyes security agencies. We need to do this with every risk that AI heightens, not just cybersecurity.

This essay was originally published in The Guardian.

Posted on July 8, 2026 at 7:03 AM • View Comments

Rowhammer Attack Against NVIDIA Chips

A new rowhammer attack gives complete control of NVIDIA CPUs.

On Thursday, two research teams, working independently of each other, demonstrated attacks against two cards from Nvidia’s Ampere generation that take GPU rowhammering into new—­and potentially much more consequential—­territory: GDDR bitflips that give adversaries full control of CPU memory, resulting in full system compromise of the host machine. For the attack to work, IOMMU memory management must be disabled, as is the default in BIOS settings.

“Our work shows that Rowhammer, which is well-studied on CPUs, is a serious threat on GPUs as well,” said Andrew Kwong, co-author of one of the papers. “GDDRHammer: Greatly Disturbing DRAM Rows­Cross-Component Rowhammer Attacks from Modern GPUs.” “With our work, we… show how an attacker can induce bit flips on the GPU to gain arbitrary read/write access to all of the CPU’s memory, resulting in complete compromise of the machine.”

Update Friday, April 3: On Friday, researchers unveiled a third Rowhammer attack that also demonstrates Rowhammer attacks on the RTX A6000 that achieves privilege escalation to a root shell. Unlike the previous two, the researchers said, it works even when IOMMU is enabled.

The second paper is GeForge: Hammering GDDR Memory to Forge GPU Page Tables for Fun and Profit:

…does largely the same thing, except that instead of exploiting the last-level page table, as GDDRHammer does, it manipulates the last-level page directory. It was able to induce 1,171 bitflips against the RTX 3060 and 202 bitflips against the RTX 6000.

GeForge, too, uses novel hammering patterns and memory massaging to corrupt GPU page table mappings in GDDR6 memory to acquire read and write access to the GPU memory space. From there, it acquires the same privileges over host CPU memory. The GeForge proof-of-concept exploit against the RTX 3060 concludes by opening a root shell window that allows the attacker to issue commands that run unfettered privileges on the host machine. The researchers said that both GDDRHammer and GeForge could do the same thing against the RTC 6000.

Posted on May 6, 2026 at 6:36 AM • View Comments

On Anthropic’s Mythos Preview and Project Glasswing

The cybersecurity industry is obsessing over Anthropic’s new model, Claude Mythos Preview, and its effects on cybersecurity. Anthropic said that it is not releasing it to the general public because of its cyberattack capabilities, and has launched Project Glasswing to run the model against a whole slew of public domain and proprietary software, with the aim of finding and patching all the vulnerabilities before hackers get their hands on the model and exploit them.

There’s a lot here, and I hope to write something more considered in the coming week, but I want to make some quick observations.

One: This is very much a PR play by Anthropic—and it worked. Lots of reporters are breathlessly repeating Anthropic’s talking points, without engaging with them critically. OpenAI, presumably pissed that Anthropic’s new model has gotten so much positive press and wanting to grab some of the spotlight for itself, announced its model is just as scary, and won’t be released to the general public, either.

Two: These models do demonstrate an increased sophistication in their cyberattack capabilities. They write effective exploits—taking the vulnerabilities they find and operationalizing them—without human involvement. They can find more complex vulnerabilities: chaining together several memory corruption bugs, for example. And they can do more with one-shot prompting, without requiring orchestration and agent configuration infrastructure.

Three: Anthropic might have a good PR team, but the problem isn’t with Mythos Preview. The security company Aisle was able to replicate the vulnerabilities that Anthropic found, using older, cheaper, public models. But there is a difference between finding a vulnerability and turning it into an attack. This points to a current advantage to the defender. Finding for the purposes of fixing is easier for an AI than finding plus exploiting. This advantage is likely to shrink, as ever more powerful models become available to the general public.

Four: Everyone who is panicking about the ramifications of this is correct about the problem, even if we can’t predict the exact timeline. Maybe the sea change just happened, with the new models from Anthropic and OpenAI. Maybe it happened six months ago. Maybe it’ll happen in six months. It will happen—I have no doubt about it—and sooner than we are ready for. We can’t predict how much more these models will improve in general, but software seems to be a specialized language that is optimal for AIs.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about security in what I called “the age of instant software,” where AIs are superhumanly good at finding, exploiting, and patching vulnerabilities. I stand by everything I wrote there. The urgency is now greater than ever.

I was also part of a large team that wrote a “what to do now” report. The guidance is largely correct: We need to prepare for a world where zero-day exploits are dime-a-dozen, and lots of attackers suddenly have offensive capabilities that far outstrip their skills.

Posted on April 13, 2026 at 12:52 PM • View Comments

US Bans All Foreign-Made Consumer Routers

This is for new routers; you don’t have to throw away your existing ones:

The Executive Branch determination noted that foreign-produced routers (1) introduce “a supply chain vulnerability that could disrupt the U.S. economy, critical infrastructure, and national defense” and (2) pose “a severe cybersecurity risk that could be leveraged to immediately and severely disrupt U.S. critical infrastructure and directly harm U.S. persons.”

More information:

Any new router made outside the US will now need to be approved by the FCC before it can be imported, marketed, or sold in the country.

In order to get that approval, companies manufacturing routers outside the US must apply for conditional approval in a process that will require the disclosure of the firm’s foreign investors or influence, as well as a plan to bring the manufacturing of the routers to the US.

Certain routers may be exempted from the list if they are deemed acceptable by the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, the FCC said. Neither agency has yet added any specific routers to its list of equipment exceptions.

[…]

Popular brands of router in the US include Netgear, a US company, which manufactures all of its products abroad.

One exception to the general absence of US-made routers is the newer Starlink WiFi router. Starlink is part of Elon Musk’s company SpaceX.

Presumably US companies will start making home routers, if they think this policy is stable enough to plan around. But they will be more expensive than routers made in China or Taiwan. Security is never free, but policy determines who pays for it.

Posted on April 2, 2026 at 1:28 PM • View Comments

1 2 3 … 14

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.