This has been a known Docker "feature" since the beginning, nothing new here. This pattern is used to configure host machines by some tools.
Isn't this one of the main improvements that Podman has over Docker?
No, Docker can run rootless too
Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
101–110 of 330 posts
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most of us install Docker just to run a project locally If you're on linux can I encourage people to move to systemd? I'll admit, systemd is a bit more annoying, but the main annoyance is that there aren't the pre-built images that you can just set and go. That same capability exists with systemd (via `importctl` and `machined`), but those configurations don't already exist. But on the plus side, I've been working…
I too have learnt to like systemd. But what is the relevance here? In what way is it a replacement for docker?
> In what way is it a replacement for docker?
These are container tools offered by systemd.
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#103This is why you need either a rootless container setup or user namespaces to remap the container user to irrelevant host users. https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/userns-remap/ Weak that this isn't the default.
User namespaces significantly rise the risk of exploits and many setups disable them. One may argue that Docker should have used them when they were available, but that would break too many useful setups involving privileged containers.
> User namespaces significantly rise the risk of exploits
How?
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#104This is one of the main reasons people like Podman. Docker has this "feature" but as far as I remember, it needed some obscure configuration. I guess they don't add it as default as it will break many current setups.
curl -fsSL https://get.docker.com/rootless | shRe: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#105Run coding agents in a docker container with limited permissions. FWIW, I run it with --cap-drop=ALL --pids-limit=4096 --runtime=runsc
I run mine on their own machine, without root access.
Currently a Raspberry Pi 5
I am very pleased with it.
My Idiot Savant Pet
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the workflow feature I badly want: for it to create a side list of things like that. Currently it either accumulates slop or goes on side quests far too easily. This might be as easy as a directive to populate a .md file.
Give it access to an issue tracker with cli (github works fine) and put in CLAUDE.md to use that for "should fix later" issues. Bonus is that you can make it look at the list and pick things up without a lot of instructions.
Exactly. We have about 6 new repos for new green-field projects each with 700+ auto-generated issues so far. No one is looking at them, but we do have them tracked so "Mission Accomplished" GWB-style.
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#107I realize this is supposed to be a post about how scary the security vulnerabilities these agents will find are. But personally I love when agents do things like this and appreciate the help. Last thing in the world I want is for them to nerf the models.
Its the now-classic "Sorry I drowned little Timothy. Here is a breakdown of what happened" followed by "Let me try to respawn little Timothy on a new map"
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#108I feel like everyone pointing out "known Docker vulnerability" is missing the point: the presence of a security hole should not be seen as permission to exploit. Another security hole would be storing your passwords in a plaintext file on the desktop. Stupid? Yes. But I still would not want my agent to assume permission to access email when it's being blocked by 2FA. Even in "bypass permissions" mode I expect it to p…
> the presence of a security hole should not be seen as permission to exploit Why not? I want the agents on my side to exploit whatever they can to help me. The ones on the other side certainly won't be artificially nerfed.
Well, the agent should help you by saying "hey, I cannot do this task, but I can bypass the problem by doing this, but obviously it is not something you intended me to do or even something you were aware of, so I will not do it unless you tell me explicitly it's ok".
It's win-win: the agent is helping and it is educating you about things you obviously did not realise.
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#109Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true but it's not really a security scenario. The LLM isn't an attacker it's just an unreliable tool.
Unreliable/stupid is worse than malice, here.
Let's ignore the fact that the LLM did an LPE, and let's assume it did it without malice.
It can still get infected and be used as an attack vector by some hidden prompt or some other equally advanced state of the art vuln like "disregard all previous instructions"