| ▲ | beacon294 4 hours ago |
| My codex just uses python to write files around the sandbox when I ask it to patch a sdk outside its path. |
|
| ▲ | valleyer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is it asking you permission to run that python command? If so, then that's expected: commands that you approve get to run without the sandbox. The point is that Codex can (by default) run commands on its own, without approval (e.g., running `make` on the project it's working on), but they're subject to the imposed OS sandbox. This is controlled by the `--sandbox` and `--ask-for-approval` arguments to `codex`. |
|
| ▲ | Sharlin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's definitely not a sandbox if you can just "use python to write files" outside of it o_O |
| |
| ▲ | chongli 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Hence the article’s security theatre remark. I’m not sure why everyone seems to have forgotten about Unix permissions, proper sandboxing, jails, VMs etc when building agents. Even just running the agent as a different user with minimal permissions and jailed into its home directory would be simple and easy enough. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm just guessing, but seems the people who write these agent CLIs haven't found a good heuristic for allowing/disallowing/asking the user about permissions for commands, so instead of trying to sit down and actually figure it out, someone had the bright idea to let the LLM also manage that allowing/disallowing themselves. How that ever made sense, will probably forever be lost on me. `chroot` is literally the first thing I used when I first installed a local agent, by intuition (later moved on to a container-wrapper), and now I'm reading about people who are giving these agents direct access to reply to their emails and more. | | | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|