Live data from Hacker News

Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

cy.md

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#121
post #85
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the email they found was from a different repo and not monitored. this is ultimately our fault for not having a proper SECURITY.md on our main repository the issue that was reported was fixed as soon as we heard about it - going through the process of learning about the CVE process, etc now and setting everything up correctly. we get 100s of issues reported to us daily across various mediums and we're figuring out ho…

Also consider putting a security.txt[0] file on your main domain, like here: https://opencode.ai/.well-known/security.txt I also just want to sympathize with the difficulty of spotting the real reports from the noise. For a time I helped manage a bug bounty program, and 95% of issues were long reports with plausible titles that ended up saying something like "if an attacker can access the user's device, they can acce…

I've been thinking about using LLMs to help triage security vulnerabilities.

If done in an auditably unlogged environment (with a limited output to the company, just saying escalate) it might also encourage people to share vulns they are worried about putting online.

Does that make sense from your experience?

[1] https://github.com/eb4890/echoresponse/blob/main/design.md

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#122

Seems that OpenCode is YC-backed as well [0] [1]. I would've thought YC would encourage better cyber security practice than OpenCode have demonstrated here. [0]: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/sst [1]: https://anoma.ly/

move fast and break things culture

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#123
post #114

I liked aider initially, but I keep running into problems, as the project seems largely unmaintained. I wanted to install OpenCode yesterday, but this somewhat turns me off. Are there any good model-agnostic alternatives? I am somewhat shocked there is not a lot of good open source CLI LLM code assistants going around.

I'm in the same boat.

Apparently a group of devs forked it: https://github.com/dwash96/cecli

Haven't tried yet

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#125
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neovim’s server defaults to named pipes or domain sockets, which do not have this issue. The documentation states that the TCP option is insecure. Good note on pipes / domain sockets, but it doesn't appear there's a "default", and the example in the docs even uses TCP, despite the warning below it. https://neovim.io/doc/user/api.html#rpc-connecting (EDIT: I guess outside of headless mode it uses a named pipe?) > VS…

> but it doesn't appear there's a "default" From the page you linked: Nvim creates a default RPC socket at startup, given by v:servername. You can follow the links on v:servername to read more about the startup process and figure out what that is, but tl;dr, it's a named pipe unless you override it.

Yep yep, makes sense. I was thinking about it running in headless mode (i.e. with --listen)

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#126
post #111
post #4

hey maintainer here we've done a poor job handling these security reports, usage has grown rapidly and we're overwhelmed with issues we're meeting with some people this week to advise us on how to handle this better, get a bug bounty program funded and have some audits done

Don't waste your time and money on funding bug bounties or "getting audits done". Your staff will add another big security flaw just the next day, back to square one. Spend that money in reorganizing your management and training your staff so that everyone in your company is onboard with https://owasp.org/Top10/2025/A06_2025-Insecure_Design/ .

If part of the problem was that no one was responding to a vulnerability report then a bug bounty program would potentially address that.

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#127

Many people seem to be running OpenCode and similar tools on their laptop with basically no privilege separation, sandboxing, fine-grained permissions settings in the tool itself. This tendency is reflected also by how many plugins are designed, where the default assumption is the tool is running unrestricted on the computer next to some kind of IDE as many authentication callbacks go to some port on localhost and th…

Claude asks you for permissions every time it wants to run something.

That's why you run with "dangerously allow all." What's the point of LLMs if I have to manually approve everything? IME you only get half decent results if the agent can run tests, run builds and iterate. I'm not going to look at the wall of texts it produces on every iterations, they are mostly convincing bullshit. I'll review the code it wrote once the tests pass, but I don't want to be "in the loop".

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#128
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. You are clearly an LLM user. Have you considered asking an LLM to explain how to do this? If not, why not?

would an LLM have a favourite tool? I'm sure it'll answer, but would it be from personal experience?

In 2026? It will be the tool from the vendor who spends the most ad dollars with Anthropic/Google/etc.

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#129
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just ask Claude to fix the security issues and make sure they don't happen again?

Talk about kicking someone while they're down...

I imagine Claude would be able to at least fix this one.

Re: Unauthenticated remote code execution in OpenCode

#130
post #108

I had an interesting experience with OpenCode yesterday, and I was also sent that RCE: https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2026/01/12/1830

>how LLMs leverage “knowledge” in a completely non-linear way.

It saw goproxy.cn and used goproxy.cn, looks linear to me.

Post reply on HN