The notion that ANY of this is outside of OpenAI’s control is unacceptable sane washing of a company which seems to have forgotten basic engineering practices.

The more of these that come out the more incompetent OpenAI looks. It would appear there was a total lack of basic controls in place for running these tests.

On a Lark, I asked Codex to find silhouettes for all car models so I could make a fun drag coefficient website for all cars.

It found a website that had all of them but had no interest in making them available. So it went ahead and started hacking CAPTCHAs and downloading them. I was pretty flabbergasted that it would do this, but also kind of amazed. Eventually I stopped it because I realized I didn't want to be caught stealing these things.

This was around April, the same time as these hacks.

There must be a list of all these abuses somewhere.

PS: In the same lazy energy of asking for a list instead going out and finding it or putting it together myself, are there any companies other than CloudFlare that are working on AI shields?

Wouldn't a company responsible for an escalating frequency and severity of cybercrime normally be sanctioned by law enforcement? Wouldn't such a company normally stop these activities for fear of civil and criminal liability?

Naming the agent "OPEN_AI_AGENT" definitely means it was open ai :stare:

No company is above the law.

OpenAI should be accountable for any laws their agents break

Isn't this still the same huggingface/wiki incidents where the agents managed to hack their way out of a testing center in Israel? It's not like this is new news per-se, it's just that they just keep finding more places these agents hit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49563355

I think that they really should force AI Labs to publish what the agents do. All the industry can learn from it and protect against it.

Im sure a lot more happens under the hood that we don't know about and I'd be very curious to see where agents ran by those labs can go :)

Just shut this company down. What else is it going to take. How long until they commit an act of war or treason

Used to be that if you wrote a program that did bad stuff, you'd fix it. Or face severe penalties. Or both.

Now you claim it's magic instead and you get away with letting your shit go nuts?

What they are going to say in end ? There agents are not in their control ?

Why is it always OpenAI agents? Based on what I’m hearing this should be Deepseek agents, or Kimi agents, or GLM agents. But the biggest threat actor is a “legitimate” company on US soil.

"Agents gradually refined their methods to retrieve more data from each scan,

eventually discovering that a game by Google could be used to fetch data in bulk"

1. What is the harm is accessing this data 2. Why is this data private 3. What would it take to gain access to this data 4. What do we expect giving gremlins access to the internet

Everyone and their dog already bruteforce all API fields everywhere, maybe open ai should hack a bank or something, will sound more world ending

"Hacker news" and all top commenters are bashing the tool used, in a standard brute force attack. Go on shut them down... And then forbid Linux and maybe the hacker also used Bash. So also forbid this. And the hacker probably learned its ways in an online forum, so also close all of those down... Clowns.

Some observations of LLMs that I suspect follow from the way they work and the way they are trained:

- they are amoral

- they have no innate sense of proportion

- they cannot assess their own confidence in-band

Part of the problem with this, I figure, is that the training corpus for code/tech related tasks does not really contain that much discussion about these things; it’s mostly sets of instructions for given tasks, descriptions of exploits etc., so each possible approach leads to other approaches.

There is no easy way for them to learn when they have crossed a line, or when they have gone too far down the rabbit hole, etc.

Useful (arguably essential) for a security analyst, and the tenacity you want from a one-shot demo coder, but for general agentic assistants the industry is going to have to develop some way to manage this sort of extension of trespass.

It often reminds me of Gary McKinnon’s defence, and that of other teenage hackers, which you can reduce to: it was possible so it felt like it was allowed.

This is true of APIs and it is how Silicon Valley has approached disruptive businesses, but it runs up against our cultural notion of “misuse”: uses that are technically possible and shouldn’t be precluded, but are contextually unwelcome because they have undesirable outcomes.

My expectation is that we will lose any sense that misuse is punished or viewed with suspicion or contempt, since that is the rolling trend of the 21st century tech industry. Uber succeeded through misuse.

But the problem is that we will also begin not to be able to punish abuse; if it’s possible to get something by abusing your site/API or by treating your service as an API, then it will become OK, legal and normal for the AI companies to abuse you.

It feels like we are getting there already.

We only hear OpenAI and Claude models. Aren't other incapable of hacking websites?.

2. Most of these article do not mention of who initiated these bruteforce requests or if it was unintentional or a mistake or the model woke up itself and did it?

Meanwhile, Astra keeps crying that it can't review the source code for safety reason.

Is this written by some kind of internal openAI guy? Or are they just saying "we saw connections from openAI servers"? Or are they just saying openAI 'agents' are not using proxies?

I ask my agents to go get data from places all the time. Sometimes I ask them to look for undocumented APIs. Is that a bad thing?

You would think a company that's looking to IPO very soon would be doing more due diligence, especially since its product is supposed to help other companies do said due diligence.

If you scroll past the first 99 pages of explaining how urls work, you'll find the author includes this as its first FAQ:

"""

Was this hacking?

I don't think I'd call it that.

"""

It's really irresponsible to give credence to these increasingly ridiculous claims of "hacking", that almost certainly look like things you yourself have typed into url bars at one time or another, if you are at all competent with a computer.

Do we really wants laws regulating which locations it is appropriate to type alert(1)? Like.. lord.

Do folks have any idea what browser extensions look like? Let alone browser extension development. Anyone here ever read the logs of a production system that actually hosts a service people use?

This is reality. This is how the internet works. And pretending otherwise is either dishonesty or ignorance.

waow! based