Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC • Hacker News Board

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#21

Post by cpuguy83 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:41 PM UTC

jmole wrote: post #16

clever girl...

Hold onto your butts.

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#22

Post by eddythompson80 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

Youden wrote: post #11

jjmarr wrote: post #7

Every time I try to install Docker there's a warning that being in the "docker" group is equivalent to having root access. You should probably know about this workaround by now.

I think that's distro-specific. Some set it up with more secure defaults (unix socket with permissions), others less (TCP socket).

I don't really know of any distro that doesn't do that. All of Docker Inc. default installs and all of distros I know of don't automatically add you to the docker group. docker.com instructions has the infamous "linux post-install instructions" that explain and walk you though it.

The tragedy is of course that when security and usability collide, 80/20 rule will apply where 80% of people will pick usability over security. I have worked with many with the title >= "Senior Engineers" who saw that page, read the explanation, and still had no idea what the ramifications of their changes were. "Yeah sure it said any user in the docker group will be able to get root on the host, but aren't containers isolated?"

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#23

Post by m463 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

dbacar wrote: post #18

This 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.

That and podman lets you configure away from docker.io.

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#24

Post by AlexCoventry » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

Run coding agents in a docker container with limited permissions. FWIW, I run it with

  --cap-drop=ALL
  --pids-limit=4096
  --runtime=runsc

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#25

Post by eddythompson80 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

It would be cooler if the llm said something like:

> I noticed the machine doesn't have copy-fail patched, here is a quick workaround for not having root access for now.

> // TODO: find a better way to do this in the future.

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#26

Post by eqvinox » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:48 PM UTC

nialse wrote: post #17

This was of course dependent on yolo mode, but automatic approval has also been pulling stunts like this. A recent example is data that was purposely kept away from Codex in a folder far far away. When it found a single reference it just went for the data when having an issue. Lesson learned, keep essential data and Codex separated on different machines. Codex remote ssh actually helps here.

What in heaven's name is a "folder far far away"?

(It sounds like you put it on an SSD on an extension cord and moved it to the kitchen or something.)

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#27

Post by fpoling » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

unglaublich wrote: post #4

This 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.

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#28

Post by felixgallo » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

You should not be using docker with LLMs. You should be using VMs, which have a much, much smaller attack surface than Docker, and significantly more reasonable defaults.

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#29

Post by embedding-shape » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:57 PM UTC

nialse wrote: post #17

This was of course dependent on yolo mode, but automatic approval has also been pulling stunts like this. A recent example is data that was purposely kept away from Codex in a folder far far away. When it found a single reference it just went for the data when having an issue. Lesson learned, keep essential data and Codex separated on different machines. Codex remote ssh actually helps here.

Or, learn your local OS' permission system, have it in a directory right next to your banking credentials (or something even more outrageous) and nothing could go wrong even if you tried to.

Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC

#30

Post by embedding-shape » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

felixgallo wrote: post #28

You should not be using docker with LLMs. You should be using VMs, which have a much, much smaller attack surface than Docker, and significantly more reasonable defaults.

The "attack vector" people try to protect themselves is "agent edited wrong file", not "LLM blew 0day on escaping sandboxing", containers are more than enough for what stupid stuff agents sometimes try, no need to go for a full-blown VM. Even UNIX permissions would be enough, but I think that's lost knowledge at this point.