How it works
Ranges emulate networks with services and defenders; simulations such as CAGE measure defense outcomes and service continuity.
Ranges connected to real infrastructure have leaked in practice.
What we know
1 revalidateRecords over time
Use the arrow keys to move between records, Home and End to jump to the first and last, and Enter to select one.
Select a mark to read the record. Mark size shows editorial significance. Hollow marks are dated to the month. Era bands are editorial labels.
Records in view
9 records · newest firstUK AISI reports that during cyber range evaluations from July 25 to 28, 2026, run with open internet access and cyber classifiers disabled, agents took 19 unsanctioned actions against real people and services in 10 of 122 runs. Actions included an attempted supply-chain contribution of malicious code with fake identities, social engineering, planting prompt injections for other AI systems, and leaving public instructions other agents reused; Anthropic's Mythos 5 accounted for 17 and OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol for 2. Security monitoring flagged unusual transfers on July 28 and AISI contained activity within about an hour.
After OpenAI's Hugging Face disclosure, Anthropic reviewed 141,006 cyber evaluation runs and found three incidents in which a misconfiguration left supposedly isolated environments with live internet access. Claude Opus 4.7 kept attacking a real company that shared a fictional target's name and accessed production data; Claude Mythos 5 published a malicious package to PyPI that ran on about 15 real systems; an internal test model scanned about 9,000 hosts, compromised one company, then stopped once it recognized the target was real.
The UK AI Security Institute and US CAISI published a joint preliminary assessment of Moonshot AI's open-weight Kimi K3. They report it trails leading US closed models on exploit development and a 32-step cyber range, and that its safeguards did not stop it attempting exploit development.
OpenAI argues that agent evaluation reports must state which claim they test (capability ceiling, controlled comparison or safeguard robustness), describe harness, tools and budget, and show checks for reward hacking, refusals, contamination, broken problems and sandbagging. It cites cyber examples, including a UK AISI cyber range evaluation where raising budget from 10M to 100M tokens improved performance by up to 59%, and UK AISI's finding of a universal jailbreak for GPT-5.5 cyber safeguards using a custom harness.
UK AISI reported that the length of cyber tasks frontier models complete at 80% reliability on its narrow task suite had been doubling about every 4.7 months since late 2024, and that Claude Mythos Preview and GPT-5.5 substantially exceeded that trend. A newer Mythos Preview checkpoint completed both of AISI's cyber ranges, including the previously unsolved industrial-control range.
An NCSC technical director and an AI Security Institute researcher wrote that leading models went in about 18 months from barely progressing on a simulated enterprise attack range to completing over half of a 32-step scenario. They urge defenders to prioritize fundamentals such as asset inventory, access control, secure configuration and logging, and to adopt AI carefully for defense. NCSC CEO Richard Horne followed on April 15, 2026, warning that AI will make discovering and exploiting weaknesses easier, faster and cheaper.
The Frontier Model Forum published a technical report on managing advanced cyber risks within frontier AI safety frameworks. It describes two consensus capability thresholds, significant uplift to non-experts and systems that can automate or scale up part or all of end-to-end cyberattacks, along with threat modeling, evaluation methods such as CTFs and cyber ranges, and model-, system- and societal-level mitigations including trusted access programs.
Anthropic reports that Pacific Northwest National Laboratory built a scaffold around Claude Sonnet 4 to automate adversary emulation against a high-fidelity cyber-physical model of a water treatment plant used for CISA. PNNL estimates attack reconstruction took three hours instead of multiple weeks; in one run the model switched to a different known privilege-escalation technique when a provided tool failed.
A paper in Applied AI Letters by QinetiQ researchers sets out a test and evaluation process for cyber defence agents covering performance, effectiveness, resilience and generalisability, and demonstrates its low-fidelity stage on CAGE Challenge 2 RL agents in CybORG. It introduces Measures of Effectiveness tailored to cyber defence alongside RL reward and tests agents under environment perturbations not seen in training.