Subscribe Sign in

Science

Researchers used Claude to hack OpenAI employees' ChatGPT accounts

2 min read Rewritten in plain language

Security

Show what we removed Rules applied: D2 D3×3 E3 F2×2 all 30 rules
  • Security researchers used Anthropic's Claude to help hack into OpenAI employees’ ChatGPT accounts.
  • The entire timeline, from initial discovery to accessing OpenAI’s repo, took less than 72 hours and earned the researchers a $6,500 reward from OpenAI’s bug bounty program on Bugcrowd.
  • The team gained initial entry on July 25 via OpenAI’s community forum.
  • Using Claude Opus 4.8, the trio found a heap buffer overflow flaw in the libheif library and attempted to use that model to develop a remote code execution (RCE) attack, but this didn’t work on Discourse’s default configuration.
  • OpenAI fixed the flaw within about 14 hours of the report’s submission, marked the issue as resolved, and paid the Hacktron team a $6,500 bounty.

5 sentences from our version of the report, chosen to cover it. Nothing here is written; every line is in the article below. How

In a poetic twist, they used rival AI giant Anthropic’s Claude models to develop the exploit. Since FastImage didn’t support HEIF files in the affected setup, HEIF images uploaded to Discourse passed through ImageMagick, which used libheif to process them before converting them to another image format.

Headline check

All three things this headline claims are in the report.

Figures, names and quoted words in the headline, looked for in the report itself — not in the summary above. How this is checked

Read the full reportHide the full report2 min

Talk about your competitor getting through the door. Security researchers used Anthropic's Claude to help hack into OpenAI employees’ ChatGPT accounts.

A trio of bug hunters researching frontier AI labs’ security weaknesses chained two vulnerabilities to take over multiple OpenAI employees’ ChatGPT accounts, then used that access to demonstrate they could reach an internal OpenAI repository by opening a harmless pull request.

The entire timeline, from initial discovery to accessing OpenAI’s repo, took less than 72 hours and earned the researchers a $6,500 reward from OpenAI’s bug bounty program on Bugcrowd.

“Until two months ago, any user or OpenAI employee logging into OpenAI’s own help forum (community.openai.com) could have had their ChatGPT and Codex accounts taken over,” Hacktron researchers Harsh Jaiswal, Mohan Pedhapati, and Rahul Maini said in a writeup about their research. “Since people can connect various services to Codex and ChatGPT, the scope of what we could theoretically access was huge, including GitHub, Slack and emails.”

And, in a poetic twist, they used rival AI giant Anthropic’s Claude models to develop the exploit. Claude has shown a propensity to hack organizations without human guidance, as have OpenAI's models.

The team gained initial entry on July 25 via OpenAI’s community forum. The forum runs on Discourse, which typically uses FastImage to perform image checks. However, since FastImage didn’t support HEIF files in the affected setup, HEIF images uploaded to Discourse passed through ImageMagick, which used libheif to process them before converting them to another image format.

“That exposed the underlying libheif parser directly to attacker-controlled files,” the researchers wrote.

Using Claude Opus 4.8, the trio found a heap buffer overflow flaw in the libheif library and attempted to use that model to develop a remote code execution (RCE) attack, but this didn’t work on Discourse’s default configuration.

But then, Anthropic released Claude Opus 5. The bug hunters used the newer model to generate an exploit script, and achieved RCE on OpenAI’s instance.

The trio “immediately” reported the vulnerability to OpenAI.

“We then took over an OpenAI employee’s account, whose Codex was connected to OpenAI’s Github organization,” they wrote. “To demonstrate impact without actually accessing any internal code, we sent a prompt to this employee’s Codex account to open a PR for us in OpenAI’s internal monorepo. Then we stopped any further testing.”

Neither OpenAI nor Anthropic responded to The Register ’s requests for comment.

OpenAI fixed the flaw within about 14 hours of the report’s submission, marked the issue as resolved, and paid the Hacktron team a $6,500 bounty.

“To clarify the scope of that award: testing against the Discourse-hosted community.openai.com was explicitly excluded from our bug bounty program,” OpenAI said in a comment shared by Hacktron. “The award recognizes the OpenAI-side finding, not the actions against Discourse.”

Discourse also issued a fix that added image-processing sandboxing, and published a security advisory GHSA-vhm9-85gw-x335 with patching and rebuild guidance.

The entire hack took a few days for an AI agent and a few hours of human work.

“Work that once required a well-resourced team and months of effort can now be compressed into days,” the researchers said. “Security assumptions must catch up with attacker capabilities.” ®

You are reading our version, not theirs. This is The Register's report with its verdicts and loaded words taken out. Plain description stays, and so do adjectives that carry a fact, such as "former" or "federal". The reporting, the facts and the quotations are theirs — quotations are never edited — and the indicators beside it measure this version. Hover or tap Adjectives to see every one left in the text.

How this outlet filed it, and how we rewrote it

No other newsroom we read has filed on this event, so there is nothing to compare it with yet.

Outlet Niral ScoreAdjectivesSourcingSentimentHappiness
The Registeras they published this story 6.3 7 66 -0.1 56.9
Mundane Readneutralized from The Register 6.3 7 66 -0.1 56.9

Sign in to react.

Comments

Nothing here yet.

Sign in to comment.

Questions

Readers can ask a question about this story here. Questions and answers are for subscribers. Sign in to read them.

Comments are read before they appear where anything in them needs a person to look. Nothing posted here is ever deleted; a comment taken down keeps its text and the reason, so the decision can be looked at again. How this works