| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago |
| This is EXACTLY why I never use an agent outside of https://github.com/kstenerud/yoloai I appreciate that you're trying to make Claude Code safer, but the agent really needs to be a lot more restricted in its reach rather than its actions. The agent should NOT have ANY access to: - Your ENV - Your homedir - The network at large - ANY other directory on your system - No, not even your workdir. The only safe way to use an agent is COMPLETELY isolated by a container or VM, using git semantics to extract its output. |
|
| ▲ | post-it a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| That's the only safe way to use any software that you haven't thoroughly reviewed. But that's not how I use any software. |
| |
| ▲ | codebje 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I spent a long time as a younger man running general software inside ephemeral VMs. The UX was terrible, but I had no fears about browser vulnerabilities ruining my day. Ephemeral is hard, and the UX is still poor, but I did try it again a month or two back, and it's not impossible. But now I am doing all my software development back inside ephemeral VMs, AI or otherwise - the UX there is much better, I significantly mitigate supply-chain attack risks, and agents are already constrained to a secret-less, low privilege environment, should I use them. There's a significantly higher likelihood of rogue software in third party dependency trees than there is in a small subset of programs you regularly use. | |
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You could in theory fully review Claude Code. But even that wouldn't be enough because LLMs are nondeterministic, and these kinds of issues are the inevitable results. Only a mechanical, deterministic failsafe can protect you from it. | | |
| ▲ | what a day ago | parent [-] | | > You could in theory fully review Claude Code. Can you point me to the CC source code? | | |
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The CC source code leak was contained many months ago. But Claude is perfectly happy to decompile its own code if you ask the right way. It'll even patch the binary for you. Regardless, It's kinda silly to keep the harness code hidden. There aren't any valuable secrets in there. But there are rules & procedures to follow, so... | | |
| ▲ | what a day ago | parent [-] | | Well then I have to use Claude before being able to review the source? Bit of a chicken and egg situation. I also have to trust its “decompilation” is accurate. | | |
| ▲ | ipaddr 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or use a different llm or do it yourself manually. | |
| ▲ | kstenerud a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're absolutely right! There's no way around this problem — and no amount of creative thought could ever solve it. All hail the agent! |
|
| |
| ▲ | Betelbuddy 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Its Vibe Coding land here...you dont look at the code.... |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | saidnooneever 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| its pretty trivial in any harness just to not have it post your shit to the public internet automatically. its a dumb idea to begin with |
| |
|
| ▲ | coldtea 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "It's difficult to make someone understand something about sandboxing when their business model is based on getting total access to your computer and your data" - Upton Sinclair (paraphrased) |
