reducePrivs()
serve get(package) {
secPackage = secure(package)
getBinaryFromArtifactory(secPackage)
}
I would think the code is very small and easier to verify,
it doesn't especially have the ability to write files and act as a message board as Artifactory did.And even if the agent tries to hack that, the attack surface is 1000x smaller and the possibility also much smaller.
But I'm not a security researcher, would love to see your hack to learn something (because that is what I do to sandbox agents that need services).
Part of the problem might be the lack of security focus, as these are AI R&D efforts first.
Similar thing happened with the UK AISI - they got caught out because the environments they had used for previous generation models turned out to be completely inadequate for the new generation of Fable-class models: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-ag...
This was part of evaluating cyber security of their frontier models and they had a "sandbox" which, and I'm not a security researcher, looks not adequate from the first look.
The entire package manager repository could just be in an offline cache. They don't need Internet to give their agents access to tons of software.
I think that was the requirement, but yes, the cache could have been offline.
Still then they could have hacked it to create the message boards - but not use it to access the internet.
[Edit: eh, a bit of both. They were doing RL on a hacking exercise. It hacked the harness which was plugged into the phone line. Same question.]