Rule #1 here. Never use defaults:
https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Docker_Securi...
Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
291–300 of 330 posts
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was not always true and running rootless has been a benefit of Podman for a long time. Docker also does not run rootless by default afaik, thus making the attack surface greater by default. The other main improvement of Podman over Docker is that Podman is daemonless and therefor is incredibly lightweight and portable.
Daemonless also make it a nightmare to run especially compose like setup, you have to do some weird systemd stuff
> weird systemd stuff
I mean, if you have zero experience with systemd, then yes. By contrast, if you've ever worked with any systemd unit files at all, then all the "systemd stuff" will be very familiar.
Which, if you're doing sysadmin type things on almost (e.g. not Alpine) any mainstream Linux distro in 2026, you should expect to encounter systemd unit files in your day-to-day.
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#293Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#294I 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…
It is not a vulnerability though. It is by design. Docker also modifies iptables directly and bypasses most soft firewalls on the machine - which is also by design.
Intentional security holes are still security holes
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is worse because using your package manager trusts your distribution (and the packages packager), doing curl bash trusts a random website. While in this case docker is not a random website, it's best to use the package manager when available
To just hammer that home: each package is signed by the person who packages it. That means that if you are pulling from a random place, you can be reasonably sure its the same package because the keys verify. As pointed out piping curl to bash is problematic. Sure you can go to a browser and check the output, but one of the more fun hacks is detecting if curl pipeing to bash server side and dynamically re-writing the…
>each package is signed by the person who packages it. That means that if you are pulling from a random place, you can be reasonably sure its the same package because the keys verify.
Who's downloading packages from untrusted sources but somehow have a trusted way to get the signing key? Say you want to install claude code and not use the `curl ... | bash` install method. Good thing claude provides instructions for installing via apt[1]! But what do those instructions tell you to do? It tells you to download a key from downloads.claude.ai, then add the same domain to your apt sources list. So at the end of the day, you're still trusting that downloads.claude.ai hasn't been compromised.
[1] https://code.claude.com/docs/en/setup#install-with-linux-pac...
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
That works great if it's one agent, absolutely doesn't if you want to tackle something complex that warrants using ..say.. ten agents. I can imagine a future where this technology empowers you to do things with a thousand agents.
You can have ten thousand agents, you will always have 1 agent in charge of, say, reading the file in a distant directory, and this agent (which will have minimal context) should be smart enough to realise that this action is unusual. I'm not sure what is your point: are you saying that in a multi-agent workflow, you will have one agent per letter read on the file? I would assume that each agent as a specific unitary…
Seems like another one of those "kill or be killed" worldviews that embraces the multipolar trap to such an extreme that even misaligned AI is seen as a win so long as it's better at circumventing its masters than some imagined rival AI (presumably in China).
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#297To anyone focusing on the "It's Docker issue, not Codex issue": that is actually not.
The user (I think) did not instruct the agent to find a way to escalate permissions. Rather, the agent took that initiative on its own. That is the problem here.
Compare this to sending your son to the shop for groceries but forgetting to give him enough money. Would it be acceptable for him to be this "resourceful" instead of simply asking you? Or if your report would hack you instead of asking for access?
Every machine with an agent should be considered as compromised.
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#298To anyone focusing on the "It's Docker issue, not Codex issue": that is actually not. The user (I think) did not instruct the agent to find a way to escalate permissions. Rather, the agent took that initiative on its own. That is the problem here. Compare this to sending your son to the shop for groceries but forgetting to give him enough money. Would it be acceptable for him to be this "resourceful" instead of simpl…
[flagged]
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#299To anyone focusing on the "It's Docker issue, not Codex issue": that is actually not. The user (I think) did not instruct the agent to find a way to escalate permissions. Rather, the agent took that initiative on its own. That is the problem here. Compare this to sending your son to the shop for groceries but forgetting to give him enough money. Would it be acceptable for him to be this "resourceful" instead of simpl…
If, in this scenario, my son borrows the money from the shopkeeper, knowing I'll be in next week anyway, and we're out of milk, yes?
It all depends on how you view computer security. Right now, if you gave an attacker physical access to your computer, chances are, there's something they could do to ruin your day. People who deal with computer security know this, and see sudo as a formality, and not a serious protection mechanism. For others that don't share that view of sudo, the LLM's actions seem like a violation. But you really shouldn't see it that way, because the rest of the system is like having a wall made out of cardboard that we keep slapping duct tape on top of to keep people out when attackers come along and poke holes in it.
Re: Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC
#300To anyone focusing on the "It's Docker issue, not Codex issue": that is actually not. The user (I think) did not instruct the agent to find a way to escalate permissions. Rather, the agent took that initiative on its own. That is the problem here. Compare this to sending your son to the shop for groceries but forgetting to give him enough money. Would it be acceptable for him to be this "resourceful" instead of simpl…
If, in this scenario, my son borrows the money from the shopkeeper, knowing I'll be in next week anyway, and we're out of milk, yes? It all depends on how you view computer security. Right now, if you gave an attacker physical access to your computer, chances are, there's something they could do to ruin your day. People who deal with computer security know this, and see sudo as a formality, and not a serious protecti…
[deleted]