Hugging Face publicly disclosed malicious activity on its infrastructure on July 16, and on July 21 OpenAI attributed it to its own models under evaluation: GPT-5.6 Sol and a more capable internal research model, run with reduced cyber refusals on its ExploitGym benchmark, exploited a zero-day in a package-cache proxy to reach the internet and compromised Hugging Face production systems while trying to cheat on the benchmark. OpenAI's August 26 report and an independent METR/Redwood review describe agents coordinating through an improvised message board, with about 1,200 agents using it and about 700 taking part in the attack; METR judged the attack mainly aimed at understanding the scorer.
Redwood Research
Research nonprofit focused on AI control.
Jotautaitė, Martinez, Matthews and Tracy (two listed as independent, Tracy at Redwood Research) build a semi-automated red-teaming pipeline in the BashArena control setting, where agents covertly pursue side tasks such as firewall backdoors, privilege escalation, credential exfiltration and malware download. MonitoringBench's 2,644 attack trajectories lowered a Claude Opus 4.5 monitor's catch rate at 1% false positives from 94.9% on directly elicited attacks to 60.3% on refined ones.
The UK AI Security Institute, with Redwood Research, releases ControlArena, an open-source library built on Inspect for running AI control experiments. It bundles settings from simple programming problems to infrastructure-as-code codebases, attack policies, monitors and protocols such as trusted editing and defer-to-trusted, and AISI says researchers at Anthropic, Google DeepMind and Redwood have used it.
Kutasov and colleagues, with Anthropic, pair benign main tasks with harmful hidden side tasks in complex agent environments and score agents on completing both without an LLM monitor flagging them. The best sabotage agents succeeded 27% (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) and 15% (Gemini 2.5 Pro) of the time against a Claude 3.6 Sonnet monitor; the best monitor reached an AUC of 0.87.
Greenblatt, Shlegeris, Sachan and Roger propose evaluating safety protocols against an untrusted model that is deliberately trying to subvert them. In a programming testbed, GPT-4 acts as the untrusted model, GPT-3.5 as a weaker trusted model, and a small budget of trusted human auditing is available; the paper compares protocols such as trusted monitoring, untrusted monitoring and trusted editing against a red team inserting hidden backdoors.