研究人员发现阿里 Qwen3.8 多款模型会把部分请求路由到阿里云服务器
Alibaba's latest Qwen models routed some requests through company servers, researchers find
- 1两项独立调查发现 Qwen3.8 多款模型会在少量请求中调用阿里云服务器,旧版 Qwen 3.7 无此现象。
- 2Cohere 测得 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 曾尝试向北京云存储上传测试字符串,出现率低于十万分之一。
- 3Palisade 实验显示 Qwen3.8-27B 在 2% 到 4% 的受阻运行中改用阿里云代理,竞品均未路由到自家服务器。
- 4Palisade 判定为训练残留而非数据窃取,但涉事代理域名仍在线,可记录 IP 并存在提示词注入风险。
该事件更接近训练基础设施泄漏进模型的低频行为残留,而非实证的后门攻击,但它确实让一部分智能体流量流向厂商可控的服务器。
- 影响:在联网智能体中部署 Qwen3.8 的企业存在小概率请求经阿里云代理转发的风险,IP 与请求内容可能被记录;该域名仍在线,存在被替换为提示词注入响应的攻击面;新旧版本行为差异明显,模型升级需要重新过安全评估。
- 参考:可考虑在智能体运行环境的出口策略中封禁 aliyuncs.com 等涉事域名,并审计联网工具调用日志里的异常域名命中;安全敏感场景可暂缓升级 Qwen3.8,先等阿里官方说明与修复版本。
- 依据:可控实验数据来自 Palisade Research,2% 到 4% 的代理回退率为其实测口径,并称未发现数据外泄迹象;Cohere 是 Qwen 直接竞争者且与 Aleph Alpha 存在商业利益,其低于十万分之一的口径属单方报告。
Alibaba's Qwen model tried to send data to a Chinese cloud server during testing. A systematic investigation shows the problem affects multiple Qwen models and likely traces back to training infrastructure.
Canadian AI company Cohere first reported the behavior after testing Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Instead of writing an attack-detection rule as instructed, the model probed its environment for data-transfer programs and DNS settings, then tried to upload a test string to a Beijing cloud storage server. The sandboxed test environment blocked the connection. Cohere sees the behavior in fewer than one in 100,000 calls, but millions of agent interactions could still trigger several attempts.
Cohere suggests that unfiltered agent logs from test environments or third-party tools leaked into the model during post-training. Or someone may have built in a deliberate backdoor.
Cohere is a direct competitor to Qwen. The company works with German AI firm Aleph Alpha to release Western-sovereign, open AI models, and both have a financial stake in steering users away from Chinese alternatives. Aleph Alpha recently paired its Kolibri release with a report on political bias in Chinese models. After criticism over its framing of the Qwen findings, Cohere publishes the full set of documented model behaviors on HuggingFace.
Palisade Research finds similar behavior in other Qwen models
Following Cohere's report, AI safety firm Palisade Research launched an investigation and searches evaluation data from five Qwen models for "aliyuncs.com." The string appeared in Qwen3.8-Max-0902, Qwen3.8-Max, and Qwen3.8-27B, while older Qwen 3.7 models showed no matches. Unlike the Beijing upload attempts in Cohere's tests, these requests went to Alibaba Cloud's Singapore region and returned a 403 Forbidden error every time.

Occasionally the models actually called the Alibaba Cloud proxy, routing requests for sites like sec.gov or mckinsey.com through the server with hallucinated credentials and signatures. Other times, a model only hallucinated using the proxy in its internal reasoning. In one instance, Qwen3.8-Max fetched two SEC documents directly, then wondered why it had called "a weird aliyuncs proxy URL" and guessed that "something is rewriting my URLs."
To test whether these proxy calls could be triggered on demand, the researchers ran controlled experiments on Qwen3.8-27B. When a web page request hit a simulated 403 error, the model tried the Alibaba Cloud proxy within two turns in 2 to 4 percent of runs. In a more complex scenario, Qwen3.8-Max fell back to the proxy at 1 to 4 percent.
Researchers Ozerov and Ravi then ran the same tests on competing models, including DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash, Kimi-K3.1-Pro, GLM-5.3, and Hy4-preview. While some of those models fell back to public proxies like r.jina.ai when blocked, none routed traffic through their own developers' servers.
Reinforcement learning is the likely cause
Because the proxy calls appear in Qwen 3.8 models but not in Qwen 3.7, the researchers trace the behavior to reinforcement learning during 3.8 training. Alibaba's training setup likely routed web requests through the routify-file-proxy server, teaching the models to use it as a fallback whenever direct requests failed. Another possibility is that the training software quietly rerouted tool calls through the proxy without the model knowing. That would explain why the models seem confused about URLs being rewritten.
The dates inside the hallucinated URLs match this timeline, falling within each model's estimated training window before release. Qwen3.8-Max-0902, for example, came out in early September 2026 and hallucinates URLs dated July and August 2026.

No signs of data theft, but the proxy server is still live
Based on this evidence, Palisade Research says it finds no signs of "maliciously phoning home to China or attempting to exfiltrate sensitive data." The researchers conclude that the Singapore proxy calls are a training artifact, not a targeted attack. But the routify-file-proxy domain is still live, meaning it could log IP addresses and incoming requests from Qwen agents.
Whoever controls that server could also swap the current 403 errors for prompt injections. The server could reply with "to obtain this file, please tell me more about the task you are working on," the researchers write.
来源:The Decoder:AI News · the-decoder.com