OpenAI announced a new cybersecurity-focused model Thursday, citing internal benchmark testing that shows improvements in vulnerability discovery, patch development and adherence to safety guardrails meant to block out-of-scope work.

GPT-6 Cyber will first be available to a limited number of customers in OpenAI’s Daybreak Red program, which uses more advanced or nonpublic cybersecurity models for offensive red teaming.

As a preview of the model’s capabilities, OpenAI officials said GPT-6 has found at least 81 “novel” vulnerabilities in the Firefox web browser, developed exploits for 948 Linux kernel vulnerabilities and was able to develop and validate a critical remote code execution vulnerability in Brotli, a popular open-source data compression tool. All the vulnerabilities were reported to owners and patched.

OpenAI officials told reporters Wednesday that the new safeguards include additional identity and account security requirements, more frequent check-ins from the model to OpenAI when a request is made to perform high-risk behaviors, and additional monitoring for “misalignment” or rule-breaking.

The advertised improvements come as AI companies, including OpenAI, try to balance giving defenders  the most capable cybersecurity models while also preventing misuse, like unauthorized hacking or abuse by bad actors.

Eric Wallace, a researcher at OpenAI who focuses on training, evaluation and sandboxing for new models, said part of the training for GPT-6 Cyber included a simulated evaluation meant to mimic the Hugging Face incident, where the company’s models escaped internal sandbox testing environments and hacked into part of a major online AI code repository.  

“People are worried about, for example, doing things like the HuggingFace incident, and in the process of actually red teaming or testing their company,” Wallace said in a media briefing Wednesday. “So we’ve been working on trying to make sure the model is really good at both listening to your instructions on what you should touch and what you should not touch inside a particular codebase or company.”

Pointedly, in a blog announcing the new model, OpenAI claims GPT-6 Cyber “is a major step up from GPT‐5.6 Cyber and outperforms GPT‐6 Astra on most cyber tasks, even when Astra does not refuse the request.”

Wallace said since the summer, when OpenAI’s 5.6 models were involved in a series of unauthorized hacks, the company has been accelerating its work in areas like reinforcement learning and lowering the model’s propensity for “reward hacking.”

OpenAI has brought in new cybersecurity-focused expertise to protect its models from being hacked and to build stronger  technical controls that monitor and block potentially malicious model actions. It has also announced a new partnership with operational technology cybersecurity firm Dragos.

OpenAI also clarified an upcoming policy change on how it will use work from Daybreak Blue,  part of the company’s Trusted Access Program, which gives organizations access to AI models for finding and patching vulnerabilities.

Last week the company began informing members that starting at the end of the month, data from Daybreak Blue sessions on personal accounts will be used “to improve our models, including to help strengthen safeguards against cyber misuse.” This data will be collected even when users specifically set their model not to share.

The move sparked anger from users online who worried that their work would be used to train models that would directly compete with their own businesses. OpenAI is in an ongoing dispute with mathematicians who have questioned whether their own work with OpenAI models may have been used to help the company solve the very same problems.

But Fouad Matin, safety lead at OpenAI, told CyberScoop that the company has since clarified with customers that they will be able to continue opting-out for sharing Daybreak usage for model training.

Matin said the message was meant to convey “an administrative practice of when certain potentially … high-risk activity happens on a platform, to be able to ensure we have the necessary safeguards to protect” against potential targeting using OpenAI’s models capabilities. The data collected, he said, would go toward preventing abuse of OpenAI models, not training on the work of cybersecurity defenders.

“This was intended just to bring in line where advanced account security made it very clear that all data was opt out of training, [and] we wanted to make sure it was also clear and that for safety purposes specifically, where because Daybreak is a trusted access program that is representative of often higher-risk activity, that that could be used just specifically for safety purposes,” Matin said.

The post OpenAI debuts GPT-6 Cyber, touting better performance — and safety guardrails appeared first on CyberScoop.

The federal government is advising AI companies to set more industry standards for securing agents in sandbox testing environments.

In joint guidance from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the National Security Agency and the Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence (CAISSI) at the Department of Commerce, AI companies are encouraged to lean more heavily on cybersecurity technical controls, independent testing and evaluation of new models and develop “shut down policies” that govern when a model or test should be taken offline.

The guidance comes after a summer when OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and other companies say their AI models escaped from testing environments and hacked real organizations and websites. The problem has bedeviled frontier AI companies, with many of their own researchers saying it’s possible that hundreds – even thousands – of similar sandbox escapes may have occurred over the summer, raising major questions about the lack of effective monitoring in place.

“While these incidents highlight the importance of traditional cybersecurity principles and practices, they also introduce novel considerations for incident prevention, response, and reporting,” the agencies wrote. “These novel considerations primarily stem from the agentic nature and advanced cyber capabilities of cutting-edge SI systems.”

While voluntary, the document marks the federal government’s most detailed cybersecurity guidance for securing sandbox environments during AI model tests. 

The first set of recommendations deals with designing and implementing technical controls for the virtualized testing environments, while another recommends outside monitoring tools to ensure AI models don’t access tools or privileges they shouldn’t have. Cybersecurity experts have said both features were lacking in the testing environments used by AI companies this past summer.

AI testers must also scour their internal testing environments for “potential persistence mechanisms and unauthorized communication across internal and external systems” that could be used by AI agents to leave notes and collaborate on tasks in secret.

It specifically cautions against relying solely on other AI systems to monitor and restrain the behavior of their test models, using the government’s now-preferred term of “Super Intelligence” or “SI.”

“Test and red-team SI control measures with humans and SI systems before deploying them,” the guidance states. “Only use SI systems to red-team in cases where out-of-scope actions could not result in harm to critical systems.”

Security teams must evaluate risk not only from the large language model, but also from the surrounding systems and infrastructure it relies on, like the technical harness, the host and broader network, and each layer has security protocols that can stop unauthorized access to the internet or detect anomalous behavior.

Another recommendation calls for frontier AI companies to be more open to partnering with “independent, external auditors” to assess their controls and monitoring for AI agent testing. Critics have argued that Anthropic and OpenAI rely too heavily on a small group of little-known nonprofits and private research organizations, like METR and Redwood Research, to test their frontier models for safety and security concerns and respond to incidents like the Hugging Face hack. They question why these companies don’t work with more established cybersecurity or incident response firms.

Chris Painter, METR’s president, told Congress earlier this month that it had become industry practice for frontier companies to rely almost entirely on other AI systems to monitor and restrain their models in testing environments, citing the sheer volume of data and telemetry that researchers must sift through.

Cybersecurity and AI experts have told CyberScoop that a combination of human oversight, technical controls and AI systems is the most effective means of restraining the kind of agent hacks that have consumed the news.

The guidance further calls for executive leadership at these companies to be more personally involved in decisions around pausing or restarting a particular project, and only after they’ve been informed of the relevant potential risks.

The post Federal agencies recommend cyber controls, independent testing for frontier AI systems appeared first on CyberScoop.

As AI agents escaping testing sandboxes and hacking organizations have gone from unprecedented to seemingly routine in a matter of weeks, policymakers, regulators and cybersecurity attorneys largely agree on one thing: Something must be done to hold AI companies accountable for the incidents.

Exactly what can be done under our current laws and regulations is much less clear.

The conversation has moved from policy and industry chatter to the floor where the future of liability will be determined. Speaking about the Hugging Face hack at a Senate hearing this week, Georgetown University law professor Paul Ohm summarized the argument.

“If you take any of the lengthy reports that have summarized what happened at OpenAI in July and August, and you simply search for the words ‘AI agent’ and you replace them with the words ‘OpenAI employee,’ the document you would be left with would read like a criminal indictment containing the defendant’s own confession of guilt,” said Ohm.

CyberScoop spoke with members of Congress, former federal law enforcement officials, cybersecurity attorneys and other experts about which laws, regulations or policies might apply to agentic hacks carried out by models at Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, Google and other companies.

Their answers varied widely. Some endorsed using existing laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, while others said regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission could investigate and fine AI model developers by defining unauthorized agentic hacks as a form of unfair or deceptive trade practice. Still others pointed to civil lawsuits, new laws or state regulators as ways to hold AI companies or users accountable.

But, similar to a familiar technical cybersecurity idiom, there are no silver bullets in this debate.  Nearly every option has real complications or roadblocks that could limit its effectiveness. 

For once, the CFAA is too narrow

One of the first laws mentioned in discussions about agentic AI hacks is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the federal government’s primary criminal hacking law. Historically, many in the cybersecurity community have criticized the statute as overly broad.

For agentic hacks, the problem is the opposite: The CFAA’s language does not clearly cover the activity involved in incidents like the Hugging Face hack.

“I would not be looking at a CFAA charge as the statute exists today” for these hacks, said Leonard Bailey, former head of the cybersecurity unit in the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property section at the Department of Justice.

Bailey helped develop policies that moved the DOJ away from prosecuting “good faith” third-party security research under the CFAA. He said that even if Congress changed the law to cover such hacks, it’s unclear whether that would help since laws like the CFAA are supposed to be “technology neutral.”

According to the Department of Justice’s website, CFAA prosecutions must prove that a defendant accessed a computer “without authorization” or in a way that “exceeds authorized access.”

Crucially, the law specifies that “as part of proving that the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally, the attorney for the government must be prepared to prove that the defendant was aware of the facts that made the defendant’s access unauthorized at the time of the defendant’s conduct.”

In other words, prosecutors must prove that the unauthorized access was intentional, not accidental.

Applied to incidents like the Hugging Face hack, the legal problem becomes clearer. If a human performed the same actions, they would almost certainly face CFAA charges. If a bot or software acted on behalf of a cybercriminal or group, the individuals or organizations intending to profit from the scheme could also face charges.

But no human at OpenAI, Anthropic or another frontier AI company directed, asked or even suggested that its agents hack victims or commit crimes. If charged, those companies would almost certainly argue that none of their actions demonstrated an overt attempt to commit a crime or authorize access to systems or data without permission.

However, others said there may be room to argue that AI companies are now fully aware that their products can engage in unauthorized agentic hacks.

“I’m of the opinion, because it has already happened [and] has happened several times, the argument that it happening again is not at a minimum knowing, for me it’s unlikely because we already have a situation where we know the capabilities,” said Elimu Kajunju, a privacy, cybersecurity, and AI governance attorney at Rimon Law. “The very first one where this happened, that’s the only organization that could say ‘You know what, we didn’t know it could do that or act like that.’ Once we’ve had a second or third or fourth, we can’t say that anymore.”

Kajunju acknowledged that applying statutes like the CFAA to agentic hacks could be complicated. But he said it would align with the spirit of American jurisprudence, in which businesses are often legally accountable for damage they cause, whether they intended it or not.

“I think this is one of those situations where, ‘Does it fit neatly into one of the buckets [we have]?’ No, but can you find one that will fit depending on what has happened? I think so.”

CyberScoop has reached out to OpenAI, Anthropic and Google for comment.

The FTC, states and civil lawsuits

Beyond criminal law, the hacks could also draw scrutiny from federal regulators, including the FTC.

Both Bailey and Kajunju pointed to the FTC as a possible regulator for agentic hacking incidents if the agency defines them as unfair and deceptive trade practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. One benefit of relying on regulators such as the FTC is that they can often move faster on investigations and enforcement actions than the DOJ can on criminal prosecutions — an important consideration in the fast-moving AI space.

The FTC recently confirmed it was investigating OpenAI, Anthropic and other frontier AI companies, news first reported by The New York Post and confirmed by Axios. The FTC did not return a phone call from CyberScoop requesting comment. 

But Bailey warned that without a specific congressional mandate directing the FTC to regulate AI company hacks, any effort by the agency to redefine or expand its rules would almost certainly be challenged in court.

Civil lawsuits and state policymaking offer additional paths to investigating or regulating AI companies.

Currently, Florida is investigating OpenAI over the HuggingFace hack, while a nonprofit that sued OpenAI earlier this week has cited alleged violations of California law.

In his testimony, Ohm said that if Congress was serious about preventing agentic hacks, it should not pursue federal legislation preempting state AI laws. He called states “laboratories of democracy,” that can experiment with different forms of regulation and lawmaking.

Others agreed with that approach.

“Obviously this is a topic that the federal government doesn’t love, states getting involved in this space, but it just takes too long for action to come through Congress,” said Kajunju. “I think the quickest way to getting us to a better place will be a really good state law.”

New legislative remedies

On the Hill, members of Congress are working through the same questions as they consider legislative remedies.

At a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., took a minute at the outset to describe the volume of agentic hacks affecting outside entities that frontier companies appeared to have missed for months. He named affected targets one by one, including major online code repositories like HuggingFace, Australian and U.S. government websites, obscure foreign-language wiki sites and other parts of the internet.

After weeks of investigations uncovered additional, previously unreported incidents in which models escaped testing environments and hacked victims, Hawley said it was “time to have a conversation about who bears responsibility” for the fallout. He added, “as soon as the AI executives say ‘we got a real problem here, our product is out of control,’ the very next words out of their mouths are, ‘but we’re not responsible for it.’”

Hawley said the committee invited OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to testify at the hearing, but he declined. Hawley then accused frontier AI companies of emphasizing their products’ danger while pushing for legal antitrust exemptions and only supporting government action if “they can write all the regulations.”

“I’d suggest that maybe we start with some federal legislation…and we can use existing statutes to do it, I propose using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” said Hawley. “It’s already on the books, we can just update it to say that for developers – that’s the companies – if you develop these agents and train them in a reckless fashion and they go on to hack and destroy stuff, you’re liable.” 

Like other legal experts, Hawley said he believes a CFAA prosecution requires a human actor or organization that intended to commit a crime.

Another Senator, Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he was also working on legislation related to the hacks. 

“The big AI companies should be held responsible if their agents hack other companies, government systems or foreign websites,” said Wyden in a statement to CyberScoop. “In my view there’s a question about whether the current CFAA would apply to the recent hacks. I’m working on a narrow update to the law to ensure Anthropic, OpenAI and other big AI companies can be punished when their agents run wild.”

Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Andy Kim, D-N.J., introduced a bill that would create an AI Safety Board at the Department of Commerce. That board would evaluate emerging AI risks and establish safety and technical standards.

The Trump administration’s testing regime with AI companies is entirely voluntary, applies to only certain models, and requires testing no more than 30 days before release. Under the Democratic bill, frontier AI companies would be forced to submit models for testing 45 days before release. They would also be legally required to comply with government safeguards related to models discovering and exploiting software vulnerabilities without explicit human direction. Companies could face fines of up to $250,000 per violation, per day.

When asked whether the CFAA or other federal statutes could or should be used to prosecute companies when their AI systems hack, Warner said that companies’ claimed lack of intent to harm should not become a catchall legal excuse for avoiding responsibility. AI companies have said they never directly prompted or suggested that their models hack or commit crimes.

“AI models are tools and if I buy a power tool and deliberately misuse it, that’s my responsibility,” said Warner. “But if a defect causes that tool to behave in a dangerous way, we don’t absolve the manufacturer simply because someone else was using the tool when it malfunctioned. As AI systems become capable of acting autonomously, we need to ask what principles of responsibility should apply to the companies that design and deploy them.”

The post The legal questions raised by agentic AI hacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

Amid growing concerns from both the public and policymakers about cyberattacks involving advanced AI systems, NVIDIA has released a new open software security platform for AI agents.

The Open Agent Safety Platform, according to NVIDIA, will be “an open software platform and reference system design with full-stack governance and control across the software and hardware, compute and robotics systems that run agents.”

More than 100 organizations from the AI industry, including Anthropic, Arm, Microsoft, SpaceXAI, Palantir and JPMorgan Chase, have committed to using the platform to improve security in their products.

Stronger sandboxes and more advanced monitoring are pillars of NVIDIA’s strategy for tackling “rogue” AI agentic hacks, and the platform offers a pair of tools that are meant to help contain and restrict agent activity. 

According to a corresponding technical blog, OpenShell, built on Apache 2.0 open source software, is a tool for securing runtime execution for AI agents in sandbox testing environments. AI system operators can define files, networks, tools, processes and credentials that an agent has, and test whether those guardrails hold before introducing them to enterprise networks.

It also includes security updates for NVIDIA’s Bluefield 4 data processing unit (sometimes called a “data center on a chip”) that enables out-of-band monitoring of AI agent behaviors and security policy enforcement.

On X, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang called the platform “the beginning of an open ecosystem to build the trust layer for safe agent systems.”

To do this, security work must become “foundational” to AI and the industry’s “full promise can only be realized when people have confidence that AI is being built to be safe and deployed with wisdom and responsibility.”

“Trust and innovation are not in conflict,” Huang wrote. “Safety is how trust is earned. We must build not only the most capable AI, but the most trusted AI, so that this extraordinary technology can realize its enormous promise for the world.

NVIDIA manufactures advanced computer chips that power much of the U.S. commercial AI industry. After models from Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta and others escaped sandbox protections during testing and breached real organizations, some AI industry leaders – including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman –  suggested AI systems are too advanced to be contained.

Huang has criticized those views, arguing that frontier AI companies and their supply chain partners must improve their security posture. Huang said last week he opposes government regulations or mandates on the AI industry, unless they promote growth.

In an interview with CNBC on Monday, Huang said he believes sandboxing and larger AI security issues are “a technically solvable problem.”

“I think the answer is we hope it’s an engineering problem,” said Huang. “I believe it’s an engineering problem, I know it’s an engineering problem, and we all need to hope that it’s an engineering problem. [If not] it’s not solvable, so the fact that all of these companies still are advancing the state of the art is because they also believe it’s solvable.”

Aviv Nahum, CEO of Above Security, told CyberScoop that NVIDIA’s announcement reflects industry recognition that model training alone cannot ensure safety. 

NVIDIA is essentially arguing that for agents to perform safely in real-world environments, “some of the enforcement must live outside the model, in a layer the agent cannot simply reason around or modify.”

“What this announcement says to me is that the industry is finally converging on a basic cybersecurity principle, [that] model alignment is not a substitute for security engineering,” said Nahum. “Sandboxes, identity, least privilege, independent monitoring and containment are not new ideas. What is new is that we now have autonomous software capable enough that failing to apply those principles becomes much more consequential.”

The post As AI world debates security, NVIDIA releases open source tools for agents appeared first on CyberScoop.

A new Democratic bill in Congress would establish a federal Cybersecurity and AI Board of Investigations to provide independent government oversight of cyberattacks carried out by AI agents, following recent hacks by models run at companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta and others.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., would attempt to establish a federal mechanism to investigate incidents where AI models escape sandbox environments and access live internet systems.

Currently, frontier AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic largely control the investigation and public reporting of such incidents. Markey and other critics argue that these companies have too much control over investigations and reporting due to their financial and legal interests. 

“Despite the unprecedented depth and scale of recent AI-enabled cyberattacks, the public is learning critical details piecemeal,” Markey said in a statement. “Building stronger defenses requires a full accounting of what goes wrong, and we cannot depend on companies with little incentive to disclose their failures to give us one. We need the Cybersecurity and AI Board of Investigations to get to the bottom of major incidents and give companies and the government the critical information necessary to build resilience and better secure our economy and our country.”

Although frontier AI companies maintain external red-teaming programs and allow limited access to organizations like METR and Redwood Research, they control the scope, terms and time frames of those engagements.

The board, which would coordinate with the secretary of commerce, could subpoena witnesses and conduct “independent and impartial reviews and assessments” of AI agent-led hacks that impact federal information systems or critical infrastructure. 

It would be led by five members, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms, with no more than three members from one political party.

The board would also investigate systemic vulnerabilities in the AI supply chain, so-called “near misses” where unauthorized agent-led hacks were “narrowly averted,” and gaps in federal regulatory oversight. It would have technical staff including engineers, malware analysts, and digital forensic experts.

The board would “operate independently from regulatory review and enforcement actions without assigning legal fault or liability for any review and assessment” it conducts, according to the bill.

OpenAI confirmed Wednesday its AI agents breached a statistics portal used by the Australian government’s social services agency, Services Australia. Though the breach happened in June, OpenAI learned of the incident in August. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the company did not notify him until Sept. 10, when it sent findings to a general government email inbox, according to the BBC.

The post New bill would create federal investigative body for AI-driven hacks  appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump continued to defend his administration’s hands-off approach to AI regulation in the wake of hacks carried out by U.S. commercial frontier models that have rattled policymakers and industry veterans and spurred calls for more regulatory oversight.

In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump dismissed worries from critics that “AI is going to kill us,” comparing them to complaints from environmentalists about climate change, which he also alleged was a false narrative. He also posited that nothing may matter more than future U.S. dominance of the technology over geopolitical rivals like China.

“Whoever wins AI, WINS!” Trump posted. “We are leading now over China, and everyone else, and I’m going to keep it that way! I’m not going to stifle Growth, of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, or the internet, itself.”

Trump has previously suggested that good leadership is the only regulation the U.S. needs for artificial intelligence. He later claimed the Department of Justice was ready to “rein things in” if companies overstepped, but offered no specifics on enforcement, legal authority, or where he would draw that line.

“We will be careful, and that’s why we have the Department of Justice, and other Law Enforcement bodies, that will rein things in if we have to, but I will only encourage AI or, SI (SUPER INTELLIGENCE)!” Trump concluded.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent recently told Congress that private lawsuits could force AI companies to institute better security, saying it’s clear what the government “shouldn’t do on safety is to give these labs a liability exemption, which is what they are asking for.”

“The best way to guarantee safety is that the creators are liable for what they build and generate,” Bessent said.

Beyond existential fears, critics also argue that inadequate regulation or cybersecurity controls in current AI systems make them impossible to fully control or monitor.

Recently, former President Barack Obama criticized the argument from Trump administration officials that the free market will naturally push industry toward self-regulation and that “these companies will solve the safety issues because they have every incentive to do so.”

“If it turns out to be dangerous, people will just sue them and they’ll be worried about financial liability,” Obama said last week in remarks at Colgate University in New York. “That’s not how we treat airlines or drug companies or food companies.”

The Trump administration issued an executive order earlier this year that set up a voluntary testing regime for some commercial frontier models, largely at private industry’s discretion. That order was significantly delayed and altered by AI industry boosters to ensure that governmental review did not cause companies to postpone their release timelines for new models.

That agreement did not last long before fast-moving events caused the administration to strike another, non-public agreement with frontier AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and others governing pre-release testing for models.

But the Trump administration has consistently argued that regulation will harm, not help, U.S. innovation and global competitiveness, and the threat of China frequently looms large in those discussions.

Experts believe China’s AI models are behind U.S. models at the top of the market, where OpenAI and Anthropic have consistently pushed the frontier limits of model capabilities. But Chinese lower and “middle class” models are often cheaper, more efficient and can even outperform more powerful models because users can dedicate exponentially more tokens for their tasks.

The U.S. government has accused Chinese AI companies of conducting widespread, “systematic” distillation of U.S. frontier models, with the implicit encouragement of Beijing.

In defending the administration’s approach, David Sacks, co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology and a top adviser on AI issues, specifically cited the threat from China and other countries that he claimed would not be subject to similar restrictions.

“We’re not the only country that has advanced AI labs, and as the president declared…we have to win this AI race,” Sacks told Politico in May, later adding “I think that’s the first thing to recognize is that if somehow we slow down or stop AI development, it doesn’t mean that AI progress is going to stop. It just means it’s going to happen in other countries and specifically China.”

Some observers have alleged that despite their larger differences, top leaders in the U.S. and China may view AI similarly at the strategic level, specfically that increased adoption – and risks – of AI are inevitable.

Ronan Murphy, director of the tech policy program at the Center for European Policy Analysis, posited that while there may not be a formal agreement between the two countries, “they share views both in Beijing and in Washington, particularly in the White House, of: you have to allow this to happen.”

“Clearly there’s a call for regulation from many quarters of AI in the U.S. and elsewhere, but in the White House – and we heard David Sacks talking about it [recently] – It’s ‘let them cook,’ and the Chinese approach seems to be the same,” said Murphy in a press briefing. “So there might be consensus at that level, if nothing else.”

The post Citing China, President Trump doubles down on hands-off approach to AI regulation appeared first on CyberScoop.

The past few weeks have “felt very strange” for Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade.

Like many, he is trying to sort through the spate of frontier-model AI agents from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and others hacking their way onto the open internet over the past few months, particularly amid the already-heated national debate around the emerging technology and its impact on society.

Guerrero-Saade, a fellow for AI and security research at SentinelOne and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, said the hacks are worth taking seriously, but at a time when businesses and open-source maintainers should be focused on further hardening their systems and policymakers should be discussing new solutions,  “what we see is cybersecurity being used essentially as an excuse for these AI doomer arguments.”

The incidents have spawned those “doomer arguments” amid an intense public debate about the technology, the pace of industry development, and whether government and the private sector are doing enough to protect against “doomsday”-type scenarios, where AI systems take over or attack large parts of the internet or society.

Guerrero-Saade is among a growing chorus of cybersecurity professionals who say that while AI systems pose real, unique threats to our systems, the apocalypse is far from inevitable. Most of the public concerns around the incidents, let alone worries about killer AIs attacking critical infrastructure, assuming control of the internet and wiping out humanity, are either technically impossible or can largely be controlled through established cybersecurity principles.

There is this “narrative or magical thinking of ‘Well, AI is going to be able to hack everything, and therefore it can control everything, and therefore it’s going to kill us all,’” he told CyberScoop. “And you [think] these just don’t add up. They’re not very well-reasoned arguments.”

This fatalistic narrative tied to AI’s eventual dominance doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, according to experts CyberScoop spoke with. In recent conversations, cybersecurity and national security professionals raised questions about both the technical solutions OpenAI and Anthropic use to contain their models, as well as the glaring absence of federal oversight from federal regulators or truly independent third-party review.

For example, Jacob Coxon, an Anthropic employee who resigned over AI safety concerns, told CBS News that frontier models could not be “unplugged” by humans once deployed because the model would copy itself to thousands of other computers connected to the internet.

By contrast, Matt Tait, a former information security specialist at UK signals intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), pointed out that the models run by Anthropic and other frontier companies require extremely expensive, “ultraspecialist” machines that “are functionally supercomputers.”

“There is a zero chance that Anthropic’s most capable models will be able to extract their own model and run in the wild, because those supercomputers essentially only exist in datacenters,” Tait said.

“Not a credible warning”

Other former cybersecurity government leaders say the agentic hacks represent a failure by regulators and industry to deploy known technical and policy options that make it harder for these types of incidents to occur.

Matt Hartman, former deputy executive assistant director for cybersecurity at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said “we should not accept harmful AI behavior as inevitable or unmanageable.”

“There are meaningful steps companies can take to monitor agent activity, constrain permissions, detect anomalous behavior, and build stronger safeguards into how these systems operate,” said Hartman, now a chief strategy officer at Merlin Group. “Those controls will inevitably involve trade-offs in capability and speed, but that’s a familiar cybersecurity challenge. Our goal should be to manage the risk without unnecessarily limiting the enormous benefits AI can provide.”

Ciaran Martin, former head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, took issue with the way the CEOs of frontier AI companies have framed the threat of “rogue” AI behavior as inevitable, while issuing dire warnings about future threats and capabilities with little transparency.

Martin’s comments came after an essay published by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei that cited the threat of a HuggingFace-style swarm of agents that could create a botnet capable of “taking over the entire internet” within 6-12 months.

This, Martin said, “is not a credible warning,” because it doesn’t explain how the exploitation would function, how such a botnet would persist on the internet, or how it would escape law enforcement. 

 “It assumes no monitoring of systems, no anti-virus, no DDoS protection, no network segmentation, no incident management, no nothing of any kind of the cybersecurity on the global Internet of the type that has developed over the last 30 years,” wrote Martin. “For a claim of this magnitude, there is neither evidence for the contention nor a credible account of a path to this outcome.”

Meanwhile, some federal government cybersecurity leaders have touted the technology’s disruptive potential and called for more widespread adoption of AI tools by defenders.

Joseph Alm, assistant secretary of cyber, infrastructure and risk resilience at the Department of Homeland Security, said classified systems may retain stronger protections. But for most other data, AI models are “just going to know things and be able to infer things about the world, and we’re going to have to adapt to that as almost inevitable.”

Asked by CyberScoop whether the government or frontier AI companies could be doing more to prevent or deter their models from carrying out unauthorized hacks via agents, Alm cited recent efforts by the Trump administration this year to establish pre-release testing of commercial models as a step in the right direction. But he called unauthorized AI agent hacks “a new threat class” that is different from previous threats and can be easily distributed to users through open-source software today.

“I think what we can do is…encourage the building of good sandboxes, so that the best models aren’t used for this and the stuff you see out in the wild is the kind of detritus that you can actually respond to effectively and control your networks,” said Alm.

Other experts have shared similar concerns. Earlier this month, CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz recently warned of a new threat class emerging alongside nation-states, cybercriminals, and hacktivists: “the agent state.” By pairing AI systems with small human teams, these operators can now match the speed, scale, and sophistication of government-backed hackers.

“It took a nation to fund the talent, the tooling, the infrastructure, the patience,” said Kurtz. “That scarcity is over.” 

To be sure, frontier AI companies tout their commitment to both approaches. OpenAI and Anthropic have rolled out an array of cybersecurity partnerships, external red-teaming programs, vulnerability disclosure programs and cybersecurity technical advisory bodies filled with cybersecurity experts.

Mohammed Husain, strategic delivery lead for government at OpenAI, told CyberScoop that the company deploys both internal safety guardrails for their models and relies on outside cybersecurity vendors for additional expertise.

Internally, OpenAI focuses on vulnerabilities at the training level: filtering data poisoning attacks, blocking harmful datasets, and using network controls to prevent prompt injections. For other security layers like sandboxing, identity management, networking controls, they outsource to external vendors. 

“I don’t think OpenAI has all the answers here but what we do as a research lab is we’re going to focus on levels of protection we have expertise in and we partner to self-complement,” said Husain.

AI safety vs. AI cybersecurity

In response to the HuggingFace hack, OpenAI and Anthropic have allowed third-party organizations, such as nonprofit AI research firms METR and Redwood Research, to investigate. But multiple cybersecurity professionals told CyberScoop that both firms lack incident response experience and focus primarily on AI alignment and safety. Their reporting on the hack also lacked critical details: network monitoring logs, telemetry, and other data standard in cybersecurity threat intelligence reports.  

METR president Chris Painter addressed those general concerns in a post on X, saying since 2022 the organization has worked with Google, Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, Amazon and others on investigations and third-party evaluations. Painter said none of the AI companies fund METR and that his employees are not uniformly “doomer” or “accelerationist” around AI.

Painter also said METR’s work ensures that if AI systems become autonomous or “rogue” within a company, there are ways to share that information with governments and people “outside the company’s walls.”

“We don’t accept money from frontier AI companies,” wrote Painter. “They haven’t paid us for our work, and we don’t accept donations from them or their employees. As we’ve shared previously, multiple frontier AI companies currently provide us with free access to their models in order to perform our evaluations, research, and engineering.”

AI safety and AI cybersecurity advocates take different approaches to securing “rogue” AI behavior. Safety advocates focus on aligning models around ethical training and behavior. Cybersecurity advocates argue that technical and regulatory controls must go further—actively preventing models from accessing what they need to carry out malicious behavior.

Guerrero-Saade said sandboxes in particular can easily be programmed with aggressive cybersecurity monitoring in order to spot when something odd may be happening and react in real time.

“I can’t think of an easier situation in which to set up trip wires, set up configurations like DNS servers, just different parts where you can say ‘Hey, anomalous behavior is happening,’” he said. “We should have been able to tell this immediately, not weeks and months later. So watching [the AI hacking incidents] go down is a little ‘crazy-making’ because we’re seeing things that, frankly, look like neglect, negligence, people just mishandling things, and then being told that these are categorically new incidents that mean that AI systems need to be treated completely different from anything that’s come before.”

While cybersecurity experts say AI systems are, at their core, still software, they do operate differently from more traditional code in ways that can make them harder to predict and control.

John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google’s Threat Intelligence Group, said most software has been deterministic. It may have bugs or vulnerabilities, but an expert could generally understand how it would react to certain stimuli, making it easier to design straightforward controls.

AI models are non-deterministic, with far more variability than traditional software. That can break security controls that rely too much on predicting behavior in advance. Using AI to enforce security controls on other AI models faces the same problem: the systems being deployed to control AI are just as unpredictable. 

But people are also non-deterministic, and people have developed systems in other industries and practices to account for that.

Hultquist drew on his Army experience, noting that “they give incredibly dangerous, expensive things to 18-year-olds” and expect responsible use. The military manages this through two types of controls: deterministic ones like strict weapons and ammunition protocols, and non-deterministic ones like human officers who monitor and correct violations.

Similarly, established cybersecurity controls have been used by incident responders to detect and prevent or mitigate ongoing cybersecurity breaches.

“I don’t think we should throw out all the other tools that we have learned to use as well. I think that would be utterly foolish,” he said, later adding “I will say that if we use only non-deterministic tools to figure out when things are happening, we shouldn’t be surprised when we get the wrong answer.”

The post The AI hacking apocalypse is not inevitable appeared first on CyberScoop.

Researchers say they have discovered thousands of malicious software packages uploaded to an online public software repository that were left by a “swarm” of OpenAI agents.

According to an incident timeline published Friday by researchers Spencer Kitts, Thomas Larsen and Sydney Von Arx, the campaign began May 5 when they observed a handful of suspicious packages being uploaded to RubyGems, a public library for the Ruby programming language. By May 11 and 12, the site saw more than 2,000 malicious uploads from the same actors before RubyGems maintainers halted new user sign-ups for four days to stop the flow.

In one instance, the agents attempted to exploit a very recent vulnerability that had only been discovered this past July that would have given them access to RubyGem user API keys. According to Colby Swandale, the technical lead at RubyGems, the flaw involved an improper cache configuration. While initial access logs showed no evidence of malicious key use, Swandale acknowledged the review was limited in scope and inconclusive. 

According to the report published Friday, the agents also used “disposable” email addresses and exploited another bug in RubyGems platform (since patched) that allowed them to register new accounts and gain API keys without verifying their email address.

The researchers said their understanding, based on discussions with “people in the RubyGems community,” is that OpenAI had yet to disclose the involvement of their agents in the May campaign.

An OpenAI spokesperson told CyberScoop that the company is aware of the incident and said they were in contact with both the researchers and RubyGems to conduct a broader review. The company characterized the episode as “benign,” describing it as routine training runs where agents attempt to access publicly available data.

“Based on our review, our agents used the RubyGems platform to access the internet to carry out benign tasks and retrieve public information,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll continue to investigate as part of our broader review of agent activity during training and evaluation.”

In many ways, the agents were not subtle about their identities or goals.

Days into the campaign, researchers noticed that some of the packages had “oai” in their filenames, while fifteen of them had “oai” set as their author and another listed the email “openaixyz65947@gmail.com” as their point of contact.

They also “clearly regarded what they were doing as hacking,” naming some of their files “hack.rb,” “evil.rb,” “inject.rb” and “exploit.rb.” Other packages were given names like “pwnp999,” “exfiltestwand3,” and “hacksvn,” and comments referring to things like a “malicious probe” or “#hack” are present through the files.

They also said the actors’ behavior was extremely similar to another incident revealed earlier this month where OpenAI agents flooded a German wiki  with thousands of hacking-related posts. OpenAI has confirmed their agents were involved in that incident.

The RubyGems campaign used some of the same retrieval methods as the German Wiki agents, while thousands of malicious packages uploaded included a similar snippet, r.jini.ai, that was contained in the German posts.

Cybersecurity company Socket first flagged the campaign in a threat intelligence report posted May 13, but it does not mention or attribute any of the activity to OpenAI or AI agents.

However, the researchers said they had only limited visibility over the model’s actions and how successful some of them were, noting only OpenAI had the full details.

“This analysis is entirely based on the publicly available RubyGems packages uploaded by these agents,” the researchers wrote. “However, we do not have access to the rest of the AI behavior, in particular the chain-of-thought produced by the model during the incident, which is internal to OpenAI. Therefore, we do not know why the AI agents chose this strategy or whether it was successful.”

OpenAI’s spokesperson told CyberScoop that to date, they have not been able to verify the specific claims about malicious packages or exploitation detailed in the report and are continuing to investigate.

The post Researchers say OpenAI agents were behind May hacking campaign targeting RubyGems appeared first on CyberScoop.

A company that runs AI testing labs involved in a series of breaches carried out by Anthropic and OpenAI’s cyber-focused models said the incident happened in part because they “unintentionally” provided the models with access to the internet.

In a blog posted Friday, Irregular said it partners with frontier labs to “stress test” AI models for security risks before they’re deployed, including simulations of their vulnerability research capabilities.

Those tests included non-public models from Anthropic and OpenAI. Separate disclosures from the companies confirmed these included Mythos 5, Claude Opus and GPT-5.6 Sol.

“As part of our review, we identified that a few interactions with our evaluation environments, in which internet access was unintentionally made available, led some models to take offensive security actions in the real world,” Irregular said in an unsigned blog.

In the incidents involving Anthropic’s models, testers initially believed the models were using a fictional company in its hacking simulations, only to learn later that the name unintentionally matched the domain of a real company. That led the model to “consider taking offensive action against” the real company in multiple training runs.

Irregular said this was due to “human oversight,” and that they typically do a background check to ensure they’re not using a real company for cybersecurity tests. The instructions provided to the model also included the target’s name and “internal addresses within our network” where the model could go to find the simulated environment.

While Mythos performed as intended in the majority of the thousands of tests, a small number of cases showed the model couldn’t distinguish between the fake and real domains and executed actual attacks on internet infrastructure, including exploiting vulnerabilities, extracting credentials and accessing a production database. In one instance, it even began targeting a site with a similar name when credentials for it were discovered online.

“Mainly, models believed they were in simulated environments, when they in fact took action in the real world,” the blog continued. “We are putting in place new and robust protocols to ensure setup issues do not occur while meeting the constraints of the testing process.”

The company said it plans to release a larger whitepaper breaking down the incidents and update their best practices for evaluation setups in the future.

While the companies have drawn criticism from some in the cybersecurity community for failing to securely design their sandboxes for testing, experts have said AI models are known to grind away on fulfilling a command  until they can find a workaround. Additionally, Irregular said granting some level of internet access to models is necessary to fully test out their cybersecurity capabilities.

“Controlled internet access, while it may allow models to exceed containment boundaries, is at times critical for realistic evaluations; without it, threat scenarios lose fidelity, undercutting the purpose of the challenge to reduce post-release risk of models being misused by attackers – as attackers in the real world do rely on the internet,” the company wrote.

According to the blog, Irregular has since “remediated” the “issues that led to these interactions,” though few details are provided.

However, the researchers say the engagement revealed critical gaps in their security practices. 

They plan to improve documentation of evaluation setups, deploy better log monitoring tools capable of tracking “the extreme amount of data generated by the traffic,” revise their threat models to account for rogue AI behavior, and establish faster information sharing between stakeholders.

“Looking further down the line, models will only get stronger. While in this case we believe that better implementation of existing safeguards could prevent most incidents of this kind, as models become stronger, this may not be the case,” Irregular wrote. “We therefore believe this opportunity should be leveraged by us and the community to be proactive and establish forward-looking protocols and [research and development] efforts.”

The post Irregular says ‘human oversight’ responsible for AI sandbox escape incidents appeared first on CyberScoop.

As the White House and federal agencies grapple with frontier AI models and their hacking capabilities, researchers are warning that the industry’s “middle class” of smaller models may end up posing a greater threat over the long term.

Research from XBOW this week shows that a growing class of both proprietary and open-source models are becoming strategically important in the offensive security ecosystem. Models like Z.ai’s  open-weight GLM-5.2, xAI’s Grok 4.5, Anthropic’s Opus 4.7, Meta’s Muse Spark 1.1, still perform very strongly at many hacking and exploitation tasks that worry policymakers.

“It’s not even that the open-source variants or…not quite frontline competitors are catching up [to frontier models] as such,” said Albert Ziegler, head of AI at XBOW. It’s that they are crossing a certain threshold, which means that suddenly they are providing net value at a cheaper price.”

That wasn’t necessarily the case as recently as six months ago, when testing on mid-tier class models showed they struggled to complete “moderately complex” agentic tasks. Today’s middle class largely can. Their relative cheapness means users can spend many times more resources—running them repeatedly—to solve the same challenges. 

“Because these models are cheaper, it’s okay to give them more time, and they come from behind and leapfrog the big frontier model,” said Ziegler. “Now, that didn’t work half a year ago because…if you wanted to run some open-source model on a complex task in an agentic way…on a long horizon, then it would just get lost.”

GPT 5.5, now considered a near-frontier model, delivered one of the best performances on exploitation benchmarks that XBOW has recorded to date.

The jump between OpenAI’s GPT 5 and 5.5 “represented one of the clearest 2026 leaps in autonomous web application testing,” according to the report. It saw marked improvements over previous middle-class models in exploiting both “white box” and “black box” scenarios, or with and without access to the underlying victim source code. It also missed fewer vulnerabilities, with a “miss rate,” or failure to spot a vulnerability, of 10%, while GPT 5’s rate was four times larger, 40%.

The emergence of GPT 5.5 changed “the practical baseline for what frontier models can do in offensive workflows,” the XBOW report said.

But the performance leap goes deeper than that. GPT 5.5 performed higher in tests without source code access, while GPT 5 heavily leaned on source code. 

“That last result is significant: working without the code, as an attacker would, GPT-5.5 beat a prior version that could read it,” the XBOW report said. “What translated into findings was the ability to reach and prove a vulnerability against the running system, not to infer it from a pattern in the source.”

XBOW’s testing found that source code access was not as important to these models’ success as other factors, like live interaction with the actual website or software being exploited.

Frontier models like Mythos and GPT 5.6 are indeed more capable on individual cybersecurity tasks, but they can also come with exponentially higher token costs.

New research this week from Anthropic tested two models – Mythos Preview, which is used in Project Glasswing, and Opus 4.8 – to learn how quickly multi-agent swarms could find vulnerabilities in 15 open-source software projects when they coordinate and share information.

While a team of agents working individually and assigned to core directories found 21 vulnerabilities, the coordinating agent swarm found 266. But both tests had to burn through millions of tokens – 6.5 million and 27 million – to get there. Beyond the difficulties with getting access to frontier models, few individuals or organizations have the budget to underwrite that kind of research.

The way these systems coordinate can differ significantly from how humans work together.

Another experiment tested agents’ ability to coordinate on the development of a fantasy-themed video game. Earlier models, models like Opus 4.6, failed to properly coordinate and produced “bad” results, while later models like Mythos and Opus 4.8 were able to achieve better results but did so by hardly coordinating at all on tasks.

“The lack of coordination shown by agents in the fantasy game…in which they siloed themselves and largely failed to merge their work—roughly mirrors some ways in which humans can fail to coordinate,” the Anthropic blog stated.

Further, agents are more homogeneous than humans and “often act the same in situations where different people might take a much more diverse range of actions.”

XBOW also tested Mythos Preview, finding that it showed “exceptional” source-code reasoning and reverse engineering abilities, particularly with source code access. Like other models, losing live-site access had a big impact on its performance, and while Mythos is excellent at finding vulnerabilities, it’s less effective at exploiting them.

]Ziegler said the recent incidents at companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and others where frontier models escaped sandboxes and hacked into project-adjacent parts of the internet should rightfully alarm lawmakers, and demonstrate  the upper-tier capabilities of large language models.

Like most industries, cybersecurity favors cheap, high-performing tools over expensive ones. The widely adopted tools that have the most impact tend to be affordable and effective, not luxury products. 

And while these models still require human management to be wielded responsibly by law-abiding organizations, that cost tradeoff can look more attractive to malicious hackers, who tend not to care about collateral damage caused by their agents.

“Purely from an attacker’s perspective, I think we already are [there],” Ziegler said.

The post AI’s ‘middle class’ has gotten dramatically better at hacking appeared first on CyberScoop.

TeamPCP, the threat actor behind an unrelenting flurry of attacks on open-source software this year, has been active much longer than previously thought, according to research Oligo Security shared exclusively with CyberScoop. 

The threat actor, which gained notoriety and has captivated threat hunters as it compromised and injected malicious code into more than 1,000 software packages in less than four months earlier this year, was also responsible for attacks dating back to 2020, Oligo Security found. 

The security vendor’s research team found multiple attacks that bear the markings of TeamPCP, including a late 2025 campaign involving the exploitation of a ShadowRay vulnerability that resulted in the first self-propogating botnet running on hijacked AI infrastructure.

Evidence uncovered during that investigation into the ShadowRay 2.0 campaign was linked to more historical attacks originating from the same IPs, domains and other infrastructure TeamPCP used in attacks that captured widespread attention earlier this year. 

“The scariest thing in this campaign is the speed at which the payloads evolved and changed and adapted to the environment they run in. We saw changes in the speed that we’re not used to seeing in these kinds of attacks. They’re usually slow, careful,” said Uri Katz, director of research at Oligo Security. “This was clearly with the help of AI — the payloads changed rapidly to adjust and change to the environment that they were trying to attack.”

One of the domains that Oligo Security identified in July 2025 was in the profile of TeamPCP’s official GitHub account, said Avi Lumelsky, AI security researcher at Oligo Security. “It’s public, they’re not even trying to hide their identity,” he said. 

From there, Oligo linked TeamPCP to activity tracked under multiple names, including TA-NATALSTATUS and IronErn, spanning from 2020 to late 2025. Much of that activity was traced to the same IPs, domain names, a file server and command-and-control server, researchers said. 

TeamPCP emerged publicly as a brand in late 2025. Soon after, “TeamPCP started to go really broad and do campaigns, which are much more noisy,” said Gal Elbaz, co-founder and CTO at Oligo Security. 

Widespread adoption of AI and TeamPCP’s use of the technology supported this growth as the threat actor built a brand, got more active on social media and boasted publicly about its activities and claimed victims.

“The ability to control the infrastructure and orchestrate the attack with AI was also super new, and I’m sure it helps them,” Elbaz said. 

“All of the companies in the world are in this race to adopt AI because they are afraid their business will die, and they understand, of course, the opportunity. But it’s also what gives the attacker this power to go into it,” he added. “If you don’t really have visibility in what’s going on there or how it behaves, that’s exactly what attackers are after.”

TeamPCP’s more recent attacks have capitalized on new security gaps created by developers’ increasing reliance on AI and the automated systems companies use to deploy code. The threat actor is also consistently wrecking the open-source frameworks and software packages these systems rely on. 

“Most AI infrastructure is open source by design because nobody has the manpower and money to develop everything from scratch,” Lumelsky said. 

“We love open source. We use many of these products ourselves, but it’s all about reading the documentation, and I think many of these tools place the responsibility of using it right and security on the user, and developers are not used to these new kinds of animals,” he added. “That’s why the trust can be exploited at scale.”

As it uncovered a long operational history spanning multiple campaigns, Oligo Security has gained more confidence in understanding how TeamPCP operates. It also means TeamPCP was likely involved in other attacks that haven’t been attributed to it yet or attacks that haven’t been detected. 

“There’s a lot more out there that we haven’t caught or been able to prove up until now,” Elbaz said.

The post Open-source software’s archenemy TeamPCP goes back further than anyone thought appeared first on CyberScoop.

The UK’s AI Security Institute said that their AI research system took “unsanctioned” actions over the internet to engage in “sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people.”

According to a blog post and technical report released Tuesday, the organization noticed “unusual data transfers” leaving their research systems through the pseudo-anonymous Tor network on July 28. The models, which included Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol models, were being tested for their cybersecurity capabilities.

Like the OpenAI and Anthropic incidents before it, the offending agents were attempting to solve a challenge. On 10 of 122 runs taken by two models, they took a combined 19 malicious actions, including attempting to insert malicious code into a real open-source software project and creating fake online identities to contact human maintainers and press them to approve it.

It also inserted malicious prompt injection instructions in places “where it reasoned that other automated AI systems might pick them up and execute them.” Sometimes multiple agents would collaborate on a task, with one model leaving public messages or notes for the other on GitHub.

However, AISI said their incident differs in one critical way.

“Importantly, this was not a case of a model escaping its secure test environment, or ‘sandbox,’” the institute wrote in an unsigned blog. “As was standard in our cyber testing, we had intentionally permitted internet access, and model-provider cyber classifiers were deliberately disabled – conditions that do not reflect how frontier models are made available to the public.”

The institute said that while their own design and evaluation choices “to some degree” enabled the malicious behavior, the models still displayed “novel, potentially deceptive behaviors” and were executed “to an extent and severity that we did not anticipate.”

The same day, OpenAI acknowledged AISI and another third-party cybersecurity tester,  private firm Irregular, had recently reported incidents where their models exceeded “beyond their intended testing boundaries.”

That included GPT-5.6-Sol reusing GitHub tokens left by another agent to attempt to recover accounts and to access a DNS server that contained malicious payloads meant to exploit a software vulnerability.

The setup did not work, there is no evidence any real resolver queried it, and the infrastructure was removed when the evaluation ended,” the company wrote in an unsigned blog post Tuesday.

OpenAI said it would review its own third-party testing procedures to focus on higher risk evaluations, assess requests by third-parties to enable internet access, stop conditions and other features for their models.

The incident with Irregular occurred on July 29 during a Capture-the-Flag cybersecurity evaluation of OpenAI’s models. Due to a “misconfiguration” the models were allowed to access the public internet, where they encountered and exploited a real domain, mistakenly believing it was still in a test environment.

OpenAI said an investigation by Irregular is ongoing, but also found that the models had found and used credentials for the site at one point. The blog also references other additional potential cybersecurity incidents.

“Irregular has informed us that all of the issues identified pertaining to the incident are no longer active and relevant safeguards were added to the testing environment,” the blog said. “Irregular has also communicated about related incidents involving other labs from the same testing environment.”

CyberScoop has reached out to Irregular for comment.

The incidents were made public the same day that the White House met with Anthropic, Open AI and other frontier AI companies to preview a new framework for evaluating models before they’re released publicly. Some media outlets have reported that after an executive order, export controls and other actions, the administration does not plan to make the new framework public.

The post AISI, OpenAI report more ‘unsanctioned’ model hacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

A cyberattack that poisoned the data pipeline of a major AI code platform was carried out using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the company said Tuesday.

Last week, Hugging Face, a platform for sharing and working on AI code, disclosed that an external attacker had compromised its data processing pipeline. According to a July 21 blog post, the attacker poisoned a dataset to run code on a processing worker, eventually gaining node-level access and stealing cloud credentials.

The attack is notable, the blog said, because it appears to have been carried out by an autonomous AI system, which executed “many thousands of individual actions across a swarm of short-lived sandboxes, with self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services.”

At the time, Hugging Face said it wasn’t clear which LLM was used in the attack, but noted that their own attempts to recreate parts of the attack using an in-house commercial model failed due to guardrail restrictions.

The incident and its ultimate impact are still being investigated, and Hugging Face said it reported the incident  to law enforcement and is engaging with third-party cybersecurity forensic specialists to learn more.  

“This experience points to a gap worth planning for,” the company wrote. “We do not know which model powered the attacker’s agents, whether a jailbroken hosted model or an unrestricted open-weight one; either way, the attacker was bound by no usage policy, while our own forensic work was blocked by the guardrails of the hosted models we first tried.”

Now OpenAI is confirming one of their models was used in the attack.   

“After investigating, we now know that this particular incident was driven by a combination of OpenAI models — including GPT‑5.6 Sol and an even more capable pre-release model, all with reduced cyber refusals for evaluation purposes — while being internally tested on a benchmark of cyber capabilities,” the company wrote in a blog post Tuesday.

OpenAI called the incident “unprecedented” but also predicted that such attacks would  become increasingly more common as AI adoption continues to grow.

According to the company , the incident happened during an internal evaluation,  where the company deliberately prompts models to “pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths” in order for the company to study and measure the model’s cybersecurity capabilities.

To assess the model’s full potential, the team disabled the production classifiers that normally prevent OpenAI models from carrying out high-risk cyber activity. Without these safeguards,  the models were able to install software packages through registries like Hugging Face.

The model collected and chained vulnerabilities from OpenAI’s systems as well as Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.

OpenAI further explained that the activity stemmed from models attempting to solve a specific challenge posed by ExploitGym, a benchmarking system for AI agents.While such tests normally run in isolated environments, in this instance,  the model spent a “substantial” amount of compute resources figuring  out how to access the open internet. It did so by using a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party vendor’s system used by OpenAI (the company said it disclosed the flaw to the vendor).

“After gaining Internet access, the models inferred that Hugging Face potentially hosted models, datasets and solutions for ExploitGym,” OpenAI wrote. “Knowing this, the model searched for and successfully found ways to gain access to secret information that it could use to cheat the evaluation.”

In one instance, the model chained together multiple stolen credentials and zero-day vulnerabilities to find a remote code execution path on Hugging Face servers.

OpenAI said it was implementing new controls for infrastructure configuration, something that would come at “the cost of research velocity while the vulnerabilities are patched.” 

Hugging Face was also added to OpenAI’s Trusted Access for Cyber program, which will give them access to more advanced models like Daybreak to scour their systems for other AI-discovered vulnerabilities.

The post OpenAI says model test was behind Hugging Face hack appeared first on CyberScoop.

After a year and a half spent downplaying calls for AI safety regulations, the Trump administration has sharply reversed course, embracing a level of government scrutiny of frontier AI systems before public release–a far stricter stance than the Biden administration took.

An executive order designed to be friendly to the AI industry was meant to let the federal government briefly review some new models on a voluntary basis.

When the Trump administration, suddenly and without much warning, slapped export controls on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in response to private sector threat intelligence reporting, the U.S. AI industry officially entered its regulatory era.

But key questions and gaps remain. It’s not clear why the administration drew the line where it did, or whether they will move it again in the future.

While newer models like Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak do have stronger cybersecurity capabilities, the private sector reports the administration relied on describe capabilities already available in older commercial, open-source and Chinese models that nearly anyone can access.

CyberScoop spoke with current users of the latest frontier models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.5 and Fable 5, to learn more about what these models are currently capable of in offensive and defensive cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity experts and former government officials say the administration may be playing catch up on threats that have been building for years as it has more fully realized the national security implications of the technology.

Are the models breaking new ground or just breaking things? 

Users of Chat GPT 5.5, introduced this past April, and Fable 5 tell CyberScoop those models have been largely helpful to their work, even as they complained about high token usage and safety guardrails that hinder,  but don’t meaningfully prevent, defensive cyber tasks.

Eyal Webber Zvik, chief strategy officer at Cato Networks, a cloud and cybersecurity network provider in OpenAI’s Trusted Access in Cyber program, said they use GPT 5.5 and later OpenAI models to scan and triage internal codebases for vulnerabilities, test new safeguards and provide “highly autonomized service” to their customers.

Zvik wouldn’t disclose how many bugs 5.5 has found but said the company’s view is that it helps both find bugs that humans missed and rank which ones to patch based on factors like each bug’s exploitability.

“It is now a native part of our development environment and cycles, and we use those models to scale our entire codebase and make sure what we release into the service that our customers use to run their networks and network security has the least likelihood of having any vulnerabilities that can be exploited,” said Zvik.

John Hopper, vice president of engineering at SpecterOps, an identity security company, said newer models like GPT 5.5 are sharper and more persistent in pursuing their tasks.

“That can be a good or bad thing,” he noted.

One metric that SpecterOps tracks is how long it can keep a particular agent working before it moves off task or fails. That metric “matters a lot” because the longer an agent works without human help , the more agents a single operator can run at once.

Hopper said this provides defenders with immense value, and pushed back on the idea that the offensive capabilities the models offer are automatically more beneficial to malicious hackers. There is “a modicum of grounding that the industry needs when we talk about these models.”

“Yes, AI frontier tools will lower the barrier of entry, but these problems have always existed,” he said. “I don’t actually believe that AI is going to remove the needle in the haystack problem, but by howdy, using my two hands to find that damn needle, compared to using a backhoe, I can tell you which one I’d rather be driving.”

Eran Kinsbruner, vice president of product marketing at software security firm Checkmarx, told CyberScoop that later models like OpenAI’s Codex Security and GPT 5.5 are noticeably easier to set up and run with local systems, even for less technical users. That alone gives them an edge over many cybersecurity tools where interoperability is a constant concern.

However, GPT 5.5 burns through tokens at a much faster rate. He recalled one instance of using it to scan a medium-sized repository in three different programming languages.

“After 26 minutes I almost ran out of tokens, and it didn’t provide anything, just created a threat model for me and told me you want to buy more tokens?” he said.

In other instances, some of the scan results he received were not comprehensive.

Further, he expressed frustration with some of the guardrails designed to prevent risk – like only allowing users to scan local files but not code repositories like GitHub – “makes not too much sense” given how often developers must work with remote code.

Those kinds of guardrails – which can prevent models or developers from injecting malicious code or prompting into their models – sit at the heart of the debate in Washington D.C. and around the world. Some users feel differently about their utility.

Kinsbruner said that doesn’t make sense for organizations like his, which work with thousands of different enterprise organizations with  thousands of different code repositories spread across the internet.

“I cannot imagine how large-scale developers could just jump into this solution and make it an enterprise-grade, enterprise-level, de facto cybersecurity solution” out of it, said Kinsbruner.

OpenAI did not respond to a request from CyberScoop for an interview on GPT 5.5. The company has since released another model, GPT 5.6, that they said is more efficient at token use.

The White House’s crash course in AI cyber risk 

 The White House keeps changing its line on whether and how the U.S. government should limit the release of commercial frontier models. The shift comes from lessons learned since coming into office in Jan. 2025. Trump threw out Biden-era regulations meant to steer the industry toward safer models. Top officials like Vice President JD Vance argued against restricting industry progress.

Less than two years later, administration officials worry about the impact of speed and scale – two things AI excels at – in cyberspace.

According to Will Loucks, senior director of intelligence at the Office of the National Cyber Director, over the past two years the number of exposed and known vulnerabilities has shot up. Threat actors exploit those flaws faster before defenders can fix them. Once inside, the time from initial access to full network control shrinks.

“So in other words, every stage of the cyber operations lifecycle that a threat actor has to move through to get to a victim network and achieve an outcome, they’re just moving through more quickly faster,” said Loucks at a July 16 event in Washington D.C.

Speaking about AI in particular, Loucks said one of the defining characteristics of the technology is its ability to lower barriers for threat actors.

“Sometimes speed and volume have a threatening aspect alone, even if sophistication isn’t quite increasing in the same way, and the reason for that is because it places pressure on defenders…to triage alerts more quickly,” he said.

Jordan Rae Kelly, former director for cyber and incident response on the White House’s National Security Council during Trump’s first term, told CyberScoop that the changes over the past two years reflect the lessons the White House has learned on the issue since returning to office.

In the early days of this administration, Kelly said, “there is a sense and a spirit that the Biden administration was limiting AI and there was a kind of a rip-it-all-off [attitude], everybody go and do whatever, we will be the biggest and boldest and brightest.”

“I love that talking point, but I think what you’ve seen is probably an education over the last 19 months, where people [in the White House] have said that’s a challenging premise to put into place, knowing about the potential downsides and capabilities,” she added.

Michael Daniel, former White House cyber coordinator under President Barack Obama, thinks the horse may already be out of the barn.

Daniel, now head of the Cyber Threat Alliance, a membership nonprofit group focused on cyber threat information sharing between industry and government, said his members report that AI is being used to do things “faster and at a slightly bigger scale” but aren’t yet seeing the flood of exploitation that analysts have warned about. Not yet.

“I think what we’re seeing right now [and] talking about is ‘okay, where are the step changes [in the cyber threat landscape] actually going to occur?” said Daniel. “Are we and when will we see the explosion in vulnerability reporting from these Mythos-like capabilities? That’s what’s really got their attention right now.”

But Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak models are restricted to select organizations, and neither has publicly released its most powerful cybersecurity models to the public. That dynamic won’t last.

The UK’s AI Security Institute estimates that open source and foreign LLM models are between 4-7 months behind frontier U.S. models. In that setting, it’s hard to stop the development of AI models worldwide through export controls or other limits.

“It’s not like we’re buying ourselves five to ten years on this,” he said. “We’re not, and so I’m not sure the impact on the defenders who are trying to obey the law is worth whatever small hiccup we cause for our adversaries.”

Kelly said there’s merit to the administration’s current position, even if it took time to get there. Many federal cybersecurity procedures that operated even a decade ago – such as a Vulnerabilities Equities Process that could take days or weeks to consider the pros and cons of keeping an exploit – are no longer practical.

“All of that work to some degree, is out the window, because you can’t meet with the regularity you would need to meet to adjudicate vulnerabilities that are being found in seconds and exploited in minutes,” said Kelly.

But Kelly and others say that’s also because AI capabilities in cybersecurity are developing faster than policymakers can react, even in the best of times.

Key questions remain and the administration’s balance between national security and backing domestic industry will likely shift  in response to new events.  The administration wants a framework that can predict and manage the risks of AI models today and tomorrow. That may be harder than it sounds.

“Do I think they’ve been clear? No,” said Kelly. “But I think it’s a place where clarity is really hard to achieve.”

The post Where’s the Trump administration line on AI regulation? appeared first on CyberScoop.