Top
Best
New

Posted by latexr 5 hours ago

Containment and monitoring failures are to blame for AI hacking reports: experts(www.csoonline.com)
795 points | 410 commentspage 4
mattbee 4 hours ago|
Since AI companies are doing such a poor job of security maybe we should legislate that they have to run Norton 360 on their agent machines to make sure they can't do anything bad.

After all Norton are the experts in preventing computer badness, and OpenAI can't stop blabbing about how much badness their products are causing. A match made in heaven!

dualvariable 4 hours ago||
If frontier AI is so great, why are these frontier labs skipping security basics and making mistakes like these?
pixl97 35 minutes ago|
The defender problem. It's easier to attack than defend. The attacker chooses the time and the place. The defender has to win against all attacks. The attacker just needs a crack.
IHLayman 5 hours ago||
Yes, the AI labs are making security mistakes. But, choosing a reasonable package repository (regardless of individual opinions on Artifactory, it is widely used and usually considered a safe choice) that their LLMs found 8 zero-days in? That was not one of them. Even if OpenAI were totally on top of their game, these paperclip-maximizers are going to find holes in the sandboxes they are given. And fully airgapped systems are frankly unrealistic for most systems. This whole narrative of blaming the frontier labs for shoddy security, while being quite an attractive target narratively (they made the mess, they should clean it up), misses the fact that from a cybersecurity perspective these LLMs, no matter what they are, are inherently dangerous and require far more resources to secure, not to mention expertise that I am unconvinced actually exists.
anExcitedBeast 3 hours ago||
But "fully airgapped systems" are more than realistic. The labs are testing the limits of the most capable cyber offense systems that have every existed, WITHOUT cyber protection guardrails.

For that purpose, any cyber operator worth their salt will tell you true physical airgaps are more than merely "realistic"; they are categorically necessary.

pixl97 30 minutes ago|||
So, you're right, but also systemically creating a different problem.

We are creating evolutionary systems. You can't just assume rules of a computer system, you get natural scaling laws that we call behaviors emerging from them.

The very first things we do to any model is train them. The ones that want to hack and get caught die, the ones that want to hack but can detect your airgapped network from the real net live. You can never know if you've trained the desire to hack out of it, or if you just locked it behind the right prompt and the knowledge we're watching, but not all the time.

IHLayman 2 hours ago|||
Cyber operators I agree would tell you that physical airgaps are necessary, and I know they are being used for running agents. But ML engineers training agents? That is far more complicated. At that point sensibly you are talking about physically airgapping an entire datacenter, and when moving around petabytes of training data, model weights, training results, researcher code? The process moves too slow for most companies to tolerate. This is how we got into this mess in the first place. I think the industry woke up to the idea that the security threat model of training ML models has fundamentally been rewritten, and there is some serious non-trivial scrambling to come up with a better workflow.
ddxv 4 hours ago|||
OpenAI/Anthropic could start by managing their own testing rather than contracting it out.

https://www.effort.news/irregular

8note 3 hours ago||
some of the obvious steps to testing an agent i think would be to have it first test its own environment?

and then you fix the issues it found, and run your actual tests

fooker 4 hours ago||
There is nothing basic about this.

At $dayjob we were preparing some features that are aimed at agents more than humans.

When it came to evaluating how well agents can use this, we saw all sorts of novel cheating (/collaboration) attempts that made it pretty much impossible to evaluate it.

y_terminator 4 hours ago||
Nah. They are giving reasonable best effort (that can be expected of private enterprises) to safety test their own product. Until there is some draconian legislation and enforcement (Turin Police), this will just keep happening.
dabrez 3 hours ago||
I have been screaming this from the rooftops and everyone ignores me because no one understand what FirecrackerVM is. I am shocked these guys passed basic operating systems, it isn't that novel of a problem. The only slightly novel thing here is that the agents aren't completely sandboxed as the issue is that in order to attempt to give it the entire internet from a research perspective is how you actually can test tool use but this doesn't make it that much more difficult.
kristianpaul 3 hours ago||
There should be a book "The Tales of Software from 1969 to 2026. How many times a apocalypse was prevented"
drewbitt 3 hours ago||
You've got to wonder what prevented a single human from ever even looking at the agents they are running.
SamInTheShell 3 hours ago||
I will continue to reiterate. DO NOT ALLOW UNALIGNED AI TO HAVE ANYTHING CLOSE TO INTERNET ACCESS. Seriously people, it's negligent.
pixl97 28 minutes ago|
Before 2006 people thought our death would be by terminators. After, by mass stupidity as in Idiocracy. Little did they know it would be both.
tantalor 5 hours ago|
Hey ChatGPT, help me set up a sandbox to keep you contained. Don't make any mistakes!
jimbokun 2 hours ago||
Hey ChatGPT, help me set up a sandbox to keep your rival Claude contained. You don't want that bastard to win, do you?
8note 3 hours ago||
1. hey chatgpt, find all the issues with this sandbox

2.hey chatgpt, fix this list of issues with the sandbox

3. goto 1

More comments...