Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#571

Post by pjc50 »

jimrandomh wrote: post #540
netinstructions wrote: post #118

I don't know if OpenAI thinks this is a marketing / PR angle for them (our super smart AI cheated on a cyber capabilities test in the most _brilliant_ way) but my read is this: Why should OpenAI (or any frontier lab) be building these systems if they can't get a secure environment / containment right? It sounds like there was little defense in depth, appropriate monitoring, or any attempts to have their super smart m…

As marketing stunts go, this is about on par with a food franchise announcing a safety recall or a chemical company announcing a spill. The AI actions described would constitute a felony if a human did them, and police are involved.

Confused as to what the point of calling the police would be here. I wouldn't expect OpenAI to turn themselves in for hacking HuggingFace.

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#572

Post by jimrandomh »

pjc50 wrote: post #571
jimrandomh wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As marketing stunts go, this is about on par with a food franchise announcing a safety recall or a chemical company announcing a spill. The AI actions described would constitute a felony if a human did them, and police are involved.

Confused as to what the point of calling the police would be here. I wouldn't expect OpenAI to turn themselves in for hacking HuggingFace.

HuggingFace reported to law enforcement before they found out that OpenAI were the ones responsible. https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#573

Post by pjc50 »

fastball wrote: post #567
voxic11 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most crimes require intent, hacking is one of them. The relevant law in this situation is: > (a) Whoever— (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (C) information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 So if it can't be proven that you intended to…

I'm sure that will change sooner rather than later, otherwise enterprising hackers will be able to claim that the model they were using went rogue.

This would be bad; we've already had a few cases on HN where someone noticed that they could increment the customer number in a URL or similar, resulting in police action.

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#574

Post by [deleted] »

netinstructions wrote: post #118

I don't know if OpenAI thinks this is a marketing / PR angle for them (our super smart AI cheated on a cyber capabilities test in the most _brilliant_ way) but my read is this: Why should OpenAI (or any frontier lab) be building these systems if they can't get a secure environment / containment right? It sounds like there was little defense in depth, appropriate monitoring, or any attempts to have their super smart m…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#575

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

foo12bar wrote: post #563

From https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026 , this is frickin' hilarious: > When we started the log analysis, we first used frontier models behind commercial APIs. This did not work: the analysis requires submitting large volumes of real attack commands, exploit payloads, and C2 artifacts, and these requests were blocked by the providers' safety guardrails, which cannot distinguish an incident respon…

It is pretty funny, because there is something here for everyone. People who don't believe in guardrails have a clear indicator as to why operators should have access to models that don't try to question their Daves. On the other, people, who think that if only we could align the models just a tiny lil bit better, none of this would have happened to begin with. Pure madness.

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#576

Post by madethemcry »

I don't see why this is different to a careless developer allowing an agent to run rm -rf. I recognize the different angle with the exploits but boy wasn't this the exercise with ExploitGym?

Similar to how the basic thought "nobody gives you something for free" protects you from being ripped off in many situations we should apply "no AI company tells you about precious internals for transparency". It's stupid marketing and it's baffling to me how people give them any credibility.

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#577

Post by AIorNot »

Chance-Device wrote: post #224
urams wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What disturbs me is that there likely won’t be a big enough reaction to this policy wise. Anthropic was blocked from releasing Fable without any such level of incident. OAI was also briefly blocked from releasing 5.6. Why do you think there is no policy appetite?

Because that was just an attack on Anthropic by a hostile administration. And it worked, didn’t it? Anthropic had to turn their filters up to absurd levels, OpenAI didn’t. It’s got nothing to do with safety.

yeah tell me about it... Fable today refused to turn on Row Level security on my internal db on in development app becuase of cyber-securty safeguard..had to switch to Codex

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#578

Post by sbrother »

nl wrote: post #442
kroaton wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't understand this sentiment at all. Is it a claim that "breaking into Hugging Face's production infrastructure" didn't happen? That it's not actually all that severe? That it was done by hand by OpenAI employees and they fooled Hugging Face? That the blog post exaggerates something, somehow? What exactly do you mean? At the moment it just reads like a thoughtless dismissal.

I think they are lying. We all know Sam Altman is a scheming liar; it's not inconceivable that HF is in on this one.

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#579

Post by e44858 »

bnj wrote: post #409
netinstructions wrote: post #118

I don't know if OpenAI thinks this is a marketing / PR angle for them (our super smart AI cheated on a cyber capabilities test in the most _brilliant_ way) but my read is this: Why should OpenAI (or any frontier lab) be building these systems if they can't get a secure environment / containment right? It sounds like there was little defense in depth, appropriate monitoring, or any attempts to have their super smart m…

This whole incident reads like OpenAI want their Fable moment

Except instead of being banned they'll be charged under the CFAA.

Re: OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation

#580

Post by cma »

urams wrote: post #218
Chance-Device wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What disturbs me is that there likely won’t be a big enough reaction to this policy wise. There’s been a relatively big reaction to Kimi K3 and Chinese open weights models, but only for financial reasons. Powerful people care about something that might pop the massive valuations of the AI companies, but not about the damage that AIs could do. Nor even about the damage that the Chinese models could do in the wrong han…

> What disturbs me is that there likely won’t be a big enough reaction to this policy wise. Anthropic was blocked from releasing Fable without any such level of incident. OAI was also briefly blocked from releasing 5.6. Why do you think there is no policy appetite?

>Anthropic was blocked from releasing Fable without any such level of incident.

The head of the NSA said Mythos breached almost all of their classified systems, though it was in an intention red-team test.

Post reply on HN