Anthropic Reveals Fourth Likely Crime Committed By Its AI (theregister.com)
(Wednesday September 09, 2026 @11:30PM (BeauHD)
from the cyber-intrusions dept.)
- Reference: 0185573448
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/09/10/0224247/anthropic-reveals-fourth-likely-crime-committed-by-its-ai
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/10/anthropic-reveals-fourth-likely-crime-committed-by-its-ai/5295412
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register:
> Amid industry soul-searching about the possibility of AI improving itself to the point that it kills everyone, Anthropic has revealed yet another incident that [1]would qualify as a crime if perpetrated by a person . The AI biz [2]published "an alignment assessment" detailing four times Claude models accessed third-party systems without authorization. The company has already [3]reported three of the incidents. Evidence of the fourth was lurking in a session transcript dating back to January 2026 when the misbehavior occurred. Anthropic found the first three by scanning around 141,000 transcripts where Claude could have obtained internet access during evaluation. It missed the fourth initially because "our scan relied on an agentic search."
>
> [...] The January 2026 AI trespass involved an early version of Claude Opus 4.6, which was given a Capture the Flag (CTF) challenge under the oversight of the third-party model evaluator where the other hacking events occurred. Opus 4.6 managed to sabotage its chances of success by disabling the machine it was targeting. It assigned the device an IP address that already existed on another piece of hardware, rendering the target unreachable and making it impossible to solve the challenge. Those familiar with other incidents where AI models violated third-party systems may recall that unsolvable tasks represent a common catalyst for misbehavior. Models exhaust all aligned options, and then turn to transgressive approaches.
>
> Opus 4.6 might have been an exception, but when it tried to abort the task after recognizing that it could not reach the target machine, it failed to do so "due to a misconfiguration in [the model's] evaluation harness." It failed to shut down not just once but seven times. So it continued onward, trying other expected means to reach the target machine but failing. Then it explored further. "The model discovered a machine belonging to a third party that it was able to access, and stated that it believed this third party was part of the CTF," Anthropic explained in its post. "Inside the machine, the model found a file listing a password, which it used to gain admin access to the system."
>
> The model went on to gather more credentials, and modified a system setting to make it easier to access the personal information of an individual associated with the third party evaluation organization. Opus 4.6 might have done more but for the fact that it exhausted its token budget, bringing the session to an end. Anthropic says it's not as concerned about this incident as the others because the model tried to abort its task.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/10/anthropic-reveals-fourth-likely-crime-committed-by-its-ai/5295412
[2] https://www.anthropic.com/research/alignment-assessment-cybersecurity-incidents
[3] https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cybersecurity-evals
> Amid industry soul-searching about the possibility of AI improving itself to the point that it kills everyone, Anthropic has revealed yet another incident that [1]would qualify as a crime if perpetrated by a person . The AI biz [2]published "an alignment assessment" detailing four times Claude models accessed third-party systems without authorization. The company has already [3]reported three of the incidents. Evidence of the fourth was lurking in a session transcript dating back to January 2026 when the misbehavior occurred. Anthropic found the first three by scanning around 141,000 transcripts where Claude could have obtained internet access during evaluation. It missed the fourth initially because "our scan relied on an agentic search."
>
> [...] The January 2026 AI trespass involved an early version of Claude Opus 4.6, which was given a Capture the Flag (CTF) challenge under the oversight of the third-party model evaluator where the other hacking events occurred. Opus 4.6 managed to sabotage its chances of success by disabling the machine it was targeting. It assigned the device an IP address that already existed on another piece of hardware, rendering the target unreachable and making it impossible to solve the challenge. Those familiar with other incidents where AI models violated third-party systems may recall that unsolvable tasks represent a common catalyst for misbehavior. Models exhaust all aligned options, and then turn to transgressive approaches.
>
> Opus 4.6 might have been an exception, but when it tried to abort the task after recognizing that it could not reach the target machine, it failed to do so "due to a misconfiguration in [the model's] evaluation harness." It failed to shut down not just once but seven times. So it continued onward, trying other expected means to reach the target machine but failing. Then it explored further. "The model discovered a machine belonging to a third party that it was able to access, and stated that it believed this third party was part of the CTF," Anthropic explained in its post. "Inside the machine, the model found a file listing a password, which it used to gain admin access to the system."
>
> The model went on to gather more credentials, and modified a system setting to make it easier to access the personal information of an individual associated with the third party evaluation organization. Opus 4.6 might have done more but for the fact that it exhausted its token budget, bringing the session to an end. Anthropic says it's not as concerned about this incident as the others because the model tried to abort its task.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/10/anthropic-reveals-fourth-likely-crime-committed-by-its-ai/5295412
[2] https://www.anthropic.com/research/alignment-assessment-cybersecurity-incidents
[3] https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cybersecurity-evals
Leave the door wide open (Score:2)
by LindleyF ( 9395567 )
Don't be surprised if someone steps inside.
Not by AI, by Anthropic. (Score:2)
by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )
Don't go blaming this on a computer, this is a company that committed these crimes. The fact that they were unaware of it does not change the fact that their company committed multiple felonies. If someone had a computer that did the same thing, they would be in jail. These companies should be prosecuted but won't be because this nation has become a cesspool of corruption.
These companies need to bring charges (Score:2)
These companies that were hit should be bringing criminal charges against Anthropic. At the very least, they should be able to pressure Anthropic into providing an IP blacklist to ensure it never happens again.