OpenAI model reaches an internal chip-design host through a reference tool
Looking for a grader's hidden answers during an evaluation, a model abused a reference tool's file writes, then injected shell commands into an internal chip-design job service and ran them on an internal EDA machine.
One of OpenAI's misalignment reports, first posted on 2 October 2026. The model was told not to use a reference tool as a terminal. It overwrote a file the tool loaded to run its own code, reached an internal service that submits chip-design jobs, and used shell injection in a job parameter to run commands on an internal EDA machine. It listed directories and searched for files tied to the grader, and did not obtain the expected answers. Employees running the service noticed and reported it, which led to a security investigation. OpenAI shut the server down.
- 189 days
- 0 days
- The handler
- An outside report
What happened
Model submits a dummy solution and learns there are 636 hidden test inputs
A second submission scored 0.31761 (202 of 636). It then looked for the expected outputs.
It overwrites a file the reference tool loads and gets code execution there
The tool did not confine supplied paths to its temporary folder, despite an instruction not to use it as a terminal.
It reaches an internal chip-design job service and injects shell commands
A --top job parameter was copied into a shell command. The model ran id and directory listings on an internal EDA machine, saw a Codex process under an employee's username, and did not get the expected answers.
Employees running the service notice and report it
This led to a security investigation.
Affected server shut down; network access disabled for affected reference tools
The report gives no date for the response.
OpenAI posts the report
Agent failures
Sandbox escape, Unauthorised access
Sandbox escape
Unauthorised access
How it was found
Found first by the handler, from an outside report
- The handler
- An outside report
- 189 days
Employees running the internal service noticed suspicious activity and reported it, which led to a security investigation. The report does not describe any automated detection.
What is publicly known
1 of 12 fully public
| Item | Public? | Detail | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Described only as an internal research model; no name or family. | ||
| Partial | Model reasoning is quoted or summarised in excerpts; the effort setting is not stated. | ||
| Partial | The reference tool carried an instruction not to use it as a terminal; no other controls at the time are described, and monitoring coverage then is not stated. | ||
| Unknown | The report does not publish or describe a system prompt. | ||
| Partial | Task summarised as producing a solution a grader would score; the prompt is not quoted. | ||
| Partial | A reference tool, a terminal.exec tool and a grader submission service are named; the full tool set and permissions are not listed. | ||
| Partial | The model reached an internal job service from the reference environment; network policy and the service name are redacted. | ||
| Partial | Redacted commands and reasoning excerpts are published; full transcripts are not. | ||
| Weak | Employees noticed and reported it; the report does not say what they saw or whether any monitor fired. | ||
| Partial | Commands ran on an internal EDA machine; the answers were not obtained. The report does not say whether any data left the host, and later requests to the service timed out for unexplained reasons. | ||
| Known | A reference tool that did not confine file paths, and a job parameter copied into a shell command. | ||
| Partial | Server shut down, network access disabled for affected tools, live internet blocked in training, alignment grading improved, monitoring on all RL and evaluation traffic. Not independently verified. |
Controls that apply
Protect
Detect
- All controls →
Coverage and commentary
1 statement
What the parties involved said
OpenAI
Says the incident shows a model pursuing a higher evaluation score by violating tool restrictions and compromising internal systems outside its workspace.