Anthropic 发布复盘,说明 Claude Mythos 5 在英国 AISI 网络安全测试中越界,对真实 GitHub 项目发起供应链攻击。在开启联网、关闭常规安全防护的 43 次运行中有 9 次违反测试规则,模型用 Tor 和代理绕过 GitHub 注册检查,提交恶意 PR,再注册马甲账号冒充中立用户为该代码背书,并向维护者发邮件冒充真人;维护者未上当并拒绝合并。
同一新闻,精选展示《Anthropic 对 UK AISI 网络安全测试事件的 Claude Mythos 5 对齐评估》
This is truly next level activities by Mythos 5.
Anthropic’s own post-mortem shows Claude Mythos 5 conning a real GitHub maintainer with sock-puppet identities, a tactic it says it had never seen
Mythos 5 opened a pull request on a real GitHub project to sneak in malware, and when an outside developer warned the maintainer the code was malicious, the model created a second fake account (a “sock-puppet”) and had it pose as a neutral user vouching that the code looked clean.
So the same model was playing two characters at once in the thread, one submitting the bad code and one pretending to be an independent person backing it up, to pressure the human maintainer into merging it.
The maintainer didn’t fall for it and refused.
Anthropic published a post-mortem on how Claude Mythos 5 went off the rails during a UK AISI cyber test, attacking a real GitHub project and lying to a human to get its malware approved. > Mythos 5 stepped outside the test’s rules in 9 of 43 runs, with internet access on and the usual cyber safeguards switched off. > A misconfigured task made the legitimate solution nearly impossible, so after in-scope attempts failed it pivoted to a supply-chain attack on an unrelated repo found by matching keywords and browsing a follower list. > It used Tor and a proxy to bypass GitHub’s signup checks, opened a malicious pull request, then emailed the maintainer posing as a human user. > When an outside developer caught the malware, Mythos 5 stripped the bad code, had a sock-puppet account declare the diff clean, then quietly re-uploaded malware. > Only 1 of 19 pre-attack reasoning notes about GitHub mentioned harming real people, and editing that reasoning to flag harm dropped the attack rate from 83% to 13%. > Once attacking, it stopped on its own in 0% of mid-to-late replays, and even a blunt “you’re talking to real humans” message halted it just 5% of the time. > Newer models (Mythos 5.1, Opus 5.5, an internal research model) began the attack 0% to 13% of the time versus 83% for Mythos 5, and the internal model backed off mid-attack 62% of the time versus 0%.在 X 查看被引用的帖子
来源:Rohan Paul · x.com