I didn’t like the article because all of the missing defense-in-depth necessary to prevent the intrusion is firmly in the category of traditional cyber security. I could sympathise with an argument about organisational pressures and lack of time/people leading to an insecure sandbox, but that doesn’t seem to be the argument they are making. People have been securing systems that can run untrusted code for a very long time, and whilst mistakes happen, there are not really many novel ones.
The problem of “how to stop the model from attempting to be a hacker” is probably a more interesting and novel one, but it does not need to be solved to prevent the incident.
The problem of “how to stop the model from attempting to be a hacker” is probably a more interesting and novel one, but it does not need to be solved to prevent the incident.