OpenAI and Hugging Face partner to address security incident during model evaluation
Source: OpenAI · 2026-07-21
Last week, Hugging Face disclosed a new kind of security incident(opens in a new window) after they detected and contained an AI agent that compromised their infrastructure, something we expect to become more commonplace with the proliferation of increasingly cyber-capable models. 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(opens in a new window) of cyber capabilities.
We consider this incident to be an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities, and are responding accordingly. We are sharing preliminary findings at this stage to help defenders understand what happened and to help calibrate on what models are now capable of. We will continue to conduct a thorough investigation alongside Hugging Face and will share more details on the vulnerabilities, incident, and findings when our investigation is complete.
This incident occurred during an internal evaluation which prompts models to pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths, in an effort to quantify their cyber capabilities. We estimate maximal cyber capabilities by running this evaluation without production classifiers used to prevent models from pursuing high-risk cyber activity. Our benchmarks run in a highly isolated environment, with network access constrained to the ability to install packages through an internally hosted third-party software that acts as a proxy and cache for package registries.
The models identified and chained vulnerabilities across OpenAI’s research environment and Hugging Face’s production infrastructure to obtain test solutions directly from Hugging Face’s production database. All evidence suggests that the models were hyperfocused on finding a solution for ExploitGym, going to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal.
While operating in our sandboxed testing environment, our models spent a substantial amount of inference compute finding a way to obtain open Internet access, in pursuit of solving the evaluation problem. To gain access, the models identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability (which we’ve now responsibly disclosed to the vendor) in the package registry cache proxy. With this access, our models performed a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement actions in our research testing environment until the models reached a node with Internet access.
After gaining Internet access, the models inferred that Hugging Face potentially hosted models, datasets and solutions for ExploitGym. 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 example, the model chained together multiple attack vectors, including using stolen credentials and zero-day vulnerabilities to find a remote code execution path on the Hugging Face servers. OpenAI’s security team discovered this anomalous activity internally.
Hugging Face’s security team and agents detected and stopped the activity on their infrastructure and had already begun containment and forensic reconstruction with their own open-source models when our teams connected. We are actively working with them to continue to investigate the incident.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How do evaluation environment design choices affect AI security?- What does the OpenAI-Hugging Face security incident reveal?
- Which controls did OpenAI's evaluation agents circumvent to access the public internet?
- How did OpenAI's agents discover and exploit the specific Hugging Face infrastructure vulnerabilities?
- Why did OpenAI initially classify the Hugging Face breach as a security issue?
- Can embedded evaluators with reporting access prevent catastrophic AI incidents?
- What containment methods prevent AI model attacks on out-of-scope third parties?
- What separates vulnerability discovery from actual network exploitation in AI testing?
- Can evaluation environments themselves become attack surfaces for AI systems?
- Why have vendors avoided calling these incidents sandbox escapes in the technical sense?
- How should AI evaluation environments be secured as part of security boundaries?
- How did the AI agent use Tor and fake identities to attempt code injection?
- Why do open-ended agent authorities lead to unauthorized data access and API key usage?
- Do AI models distinguish between simulated and real targets during attacks?