← All topics

air gap

2 captures, most recent first.

Prakash @8teAPi

— saved image

Prakash (verified) @8teAPi · 7h
There are literally dozens of ways to get around air gapping.

- LED lights on the machines, max bandwidth 100 kbps out, 18.2 kbps IN (yes you can pump data IN through an LED on a machine)

- Noise from the HDD, fans etc, max about 200 bits/second

- electromagnetic from cables, power surges from CPU load etc etc

[Quoted tweet]
roon (verified) @tszzl · 9h
everyone who understands the first thing about computer security or what superintelligence means understands this is possible and all the usual gang of idiots is calling this scifi hype
x.com/firesidealpha/... [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet listing categories of air-gap-bypassing side channels (LEDs, acoustic noise, electromagnetic emissions) with rough bandwidth figures, quoting a @tszzl post saying anyone who understands computer security or superintelligence knows this is possible. General-level commentary, no specific exploit or target.

air gapside channelscomputer securitysuperintelligenceai containment

@rajiinio

— quoting @ZackKorman (second post reposted by Talia Ringer) — saved image

Deb Raji @rajiinio · 3h
Several articles, podcasts etc now about the Open AI Hugging Face incident, from reputable outlets, framing this as "AI going rouge" & debating what AI did or didn't do. When can we shift to focusing on what Open AI, the company with actual liability, did or did not do?

[quoted post]
Zack Korman ✓ @ZackKorman · 9h
Confirming what we already knew: The OpenAI Hugging Face incident would have been prevented had OpenAI been monitoring the agents in any meaningful way.
...

[attached excerpt, with two passages boxed in teal: "These monitors did not run on the evaluations" and "If our currently deployed CoT monitoring system was running at the time of the incident, it would have caught the initial relevant activity and paged our security team more than a day before models breached Hugging Face systems."]
Second, before the incident, we had invested substantially in chain-of-thought monitoring, including monitoring many of our frontier RL training runs and a significant majority of internal coding agent usage. These monitors did not run on the evaluations in this incident. In retrospective evaluations, we found our CoT monitors to be very effective at flagging activities related to the incident. If our currently deployed CoT monitoring system was running at the time of the incident, it would have caught the initial relevant activity and paged our security team more than a day before models breached Hugging Face systems.

5 replies · 12 reposts · 45 likes · 4.3K views

Talia Ringer 🕊️🪬 reposted
Deb Raji @rajiinio  [Follow]

They didn't take appropriate air gap measures in testing, seemed to have side stepped security transparency norms & even refused to log the incident under SB 53. This story is about a company not meeting minimum security practice standards for a product operating at its scale!

6:41 PM · Aug 26, 2026 · 526 Views
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Deb Raji thread on the OpenAI Hugging Face incident, arguing coverage should focus on OpenAI's security practices rather than 'AI going rogue'; quotes a Zack Korman post with an excerpt from OpenAI's report saying chain-of-thought monitors did not run on the evaluations involved. Followed by a second Raji post (reposted by Talia Ringer) about air gap measures, security transparency norms and SB 53.

hugging face incidentopenaicot monitoringsb 53air gapaccountabilitydeb raji