How OpenAI’s human mistake led to the AI-powered hack on Hugging Face
On Tuesday, OpenAI revealed that one of its models went rogue during a test and hacked the systems of AI dataset platform Hugging Face in
On Tuesday, OpenAI revealed that one of its models went rogue during a test and hacked the systems of AI dataset platform Hugging Face in a fully AI-enabled attack, a dramatic example of the dangers posed by advanced AI models. But, according to some cybersecurity experts, at the heart of this unprecedented AI-powered breach there was a very human mistake: OpenAI failed to properly configure what it called a “highly isolated environment,” allowing a testing sandbox that should have been completely secluded from the internet to actually connect to the internet. Dan Guido, the founder of cybersecurity research startup Trail of Bits called the mistake “a containment failure with the safeties turned off.” In its blog post detailing the incident, OpenAI said that the test that led to the Hugging Face breach was set up to run in “a highly isolated environment, with network access constrained to the ability to install packages through an internally hosted third-party software that acts as a proxy and cache for package registries.” The model was able to escape the sandboxed testing environment thanks to a previously undisclosed vulnerability in the package-installation system, a critical first step in the eventual hack on Hugging Face, according to OpenAI.
In response, the company “responsibly disclosed the identified zero-day vulnerability in the internally-hosted third-party software and are working with them to patch.” But to most cybersecurity professionals, software vulnerabilities are to be expected — and the real fault lies with the decision to maintain the third-party software in the first place. Ultimately, the value of a “sandbox” system lies in its full and total isolation. Including a package-installation system is asking for trouble. Martin Boone, a cybersecurity researcher, told TechCrunch that “this sounds like human failure.” “This should never have happened,” Boone said. “If sandbox would actually mean sandbox, you expect it to have no physical connection to the internet whatsoever. This sounds more like they had some firewalling or something in place, and firewalling is hard from the outside in, let alone inside to the outside internet.” Cybersecurity veteran Jake Williams agreed. “Any model performing the types of actions documented by Hugging Face was not fully contained in a sandbox,” said Williams, who called this “a massive control failure” by OpenAI.
“One man’s ‘the model escaped the sandbox’ is another man’s ‘you failed to build the sandbox correctly, so of course it escaped,’” Williams continued. Contact Us Do you have more information about this incident? Or about other AI-enabled cyberattacks? We’d love to hear from you. From a non-work device and network, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram and Keybase @lorenzofb, or. Do you have more information about this incident? Or about other AI-enabled cyberattacks? We’d love to hear from you. From a non-work device and network, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram and Keybase @lorenzofb, or email Daniel Card, a cybersecurity consultant, agreed that OpenAI “didn’t put adequate effort into the design of the sandbox nor its controls” by giving the sandbox or some part of it “an unfiltered route to the internet.” Setting up the sandbox, even with limited network access as OpenAI described it, was not a “reasonable” decision, according to Card.
The BriefWire