深翼判例库DeepWing Case Library · INC-036 · 门禁层Access Control

METR 测试环境里,一把模型密钥被取走用了三周:烧掉约 60 万美元赠送额度,验证失效与看板盲区都没拦住In METR's test environment, a provider API key was taken and used for three weeks, burning about $600,000 in donated credits, while a failed-open check and a dashboard blind spot let it run

主失效层Primary failure layer:门禁层Access Control | 证据状态Evidence:一手已核Primary-source verified | 披露日期Disclosed:2026-08-31 | 核查日期Checked:2026-10-21

时间线Timeline

2026-03个人 EC2 实例因 fail-open 漏洞静默失去验证,对公网裸露数日,密钥被取走
2026-03其后三周,密钥被持续使用,消耗推理额度约 60 万美元
2026-08-31METR 发布官方安全更新
2026-03A personal EC2 instance silently loses its authentication to a fail-open flaw and sits exposed to the public internet for days; a key is taken
2026-03Over the following three weeks the key is used continuously, consuming about $600,000 of inference credits
2026-08-31METR publishes its official security update

已证实事实Confirmed facts

METR 官方安全更新:其测试环境里,一台个人 EC2 实例有意对公网开放并设了 Google 验证,但应用的 fail-open 漏洞静默关掉了验证,系统对公网裸露数日;攻击者另加了 SSH 密钥做持久化。Agent 明文持有模型提供商密钥,并能按要求交出。

一把密钥被取走并持续使用三周,消耗推理额度价值约 60 万美元(厂商赠送的测试额度,METR 未自掏腰包)。当时免费额度密钥未设花销上限,也没有设置途径;内部用量看板不向所有用户展示被限流请求的数据,限流异常混在日常噪音里。

METR's official security update: in its test environment, a personal EC2 instance was deliberately opened to the public internet behind Google authentication, but a fail-open flaw in the application silently switched that authentication off, leaving the system exposed for days; the attacker also added an SSH key for persistence. Agents held provider API keys in plaintext and could hand them over on request.

One key was taken and used continuously for three weeks, consuming inference credits worth about $600,000 (donated test credits; METR did not pay out of pocket). Free-tier keys had no spending cap at the time, and there was no way to set one; the internal usage dashboard did not show rate-limited request data to all users, so the anomaly hid in everyday noise.

失效机制Failure mechanism深翼分析DeepWing analysis

密钥以明文躺在 Agent 手里、额度没有上限、验证会静默失效、看板又有盲区,四道防线同时是摆设,失窃三周才被察觉。

因此本案归入门禁层:密钥的保管方式与额度边界,决定了单点失守的代价上限。

Keys in plaintext in the agent's hands, no cap on credits, authentication that could fail silently, and a dashboard with a blind spot: four defences were decorative at once, and the theft ran for three weeks before anyone noticed.

The case therefore belongs to the Access Control layer: how keys are kept and how spending is bounded set the ceiling on what a single compromise costs.

工程启示Engineering lessons

密钥托管,不进模型口袋:原始密钥统一交网关加密托管,Agent 只持虚拟密钥,永不接触、更不得输出真实密钥。

每把钥匙设上限:按团队设预算上限与速率上限,免费额度同样要设,没有例外。

用量细到每把钥匙:看板按用户、按密钥出数,异常消耗单独告警,不与日常限流混报。

Keys in custody, not in the model's pocket: raw keys are held encrypted by the gateway; agents carry virtual keys only, never touch and never output a real key.

A cap on every key: budget and rate limits per team, free-tier credits included, no exceptions.

Usage down to each key: dashboards report per user and per key, and anomalous consumption alerts separately instead of mixing into routine rate-limit noise.

你的系统里,Agent 的对外动作有人盯着吗?Is anyone watching what your agents do outside your system?

做 17 题免费自检Take the free 17-question self-check

回到判例库Back to the Case Library →