You can do this now: change the file permissions such that the user you run codex as can't read them, or run codex in a container without those files mounted.
If you don't do that, the agent will be able to incidentally upload them. What if the model runs "rg foo", and one of those files contains the string "foo"? It uploads the tool output, which includes the file contents.
And so, the only solution is to make it so the codex process is unable to access those files, hence using a container, or unix permissions, or deleting the files. Which you can already do.
I imagine this isn't resolved primarily because people expect it to apply to bash tool use, not just the "read" and "edit" tools, and people also expect those files to still be accessible i.e. if the agent invokes "make", which makes it impossible to solve perfectly.
100% this. The idea that Codex should enforce this is putting the security boundary at the wrong layer. If you don’t want codes to access something, make it so it doesn’t have access.
The Codex bug tracker is a great insight into how wide the knowledge gap seem to be between users. The issue where people ask them to add back /undo or whatever it is instead of just learning to use git, probably reached 100 comments at least by now. People seemingly don't really understand the computers they use on a daily basis, and refuse to learn too.
I suspect most people don't even know there's a there there.
For instance, while I now know that file systems have permissions, before I became a programmer, I spent maybe ten years thinking of permissions as a special, obscure system thing that you should never touch.
For that matter, I suspect many people don't know basic things like that a file system isn't inherently the operating system.
And, where would you go to learn this information? Your Mac doesn't ship with a manual—how would you know one exists? Furthermore, I would wager that perhaps most people have never learned how anything works requiring a manual and are simply unaware that that's a thing.
All to say, I'm not sure "refusal" is the right term.
The difference is that git is a traditional programming tool which executes deterministically.
agents are not deterministic tools, they're not sandboxes or container runtimes or languages with capabilities models.
They're a way to run arbitrary commands.
It would be like saying that "xterm" should have a ".xtermnoexec" list of commands you can't run, or that VLC should have an option for actors it won't show.
terminals run shells which run commands, it's not really deeply aware of what commands your shell ultimately run, and it's not in xterm's job to setup a sandbox and strip out executables.
VLC displays pixels, it's not up to it to figure out if those pixels are a certain actor.
codex pipes text and tool calls back and forth between OpenAI's servers, and it barely understands what that text and those tool calls are, and especially if a given tool touched a file. If you want VLC to not display an actor, you need to add a layer on top of VLC to stop it displaying a list of movies. If you want codex to not display a file's contents, you need a layer on top of codex to prevent it going near that file.
I don't think I've ever seen it used. I think the idea was back in the day when you wanted to let a user have a shell login (because that's the only way you could use a shared computer) but wanted to confine them to a specific directory and prevent them running anything that wasn't in the pre-defined PATH that you set for them.
.gitignore doesn't have the same security implications.
If you fail to prevent a private key from being added to your repository, you can reverse this and purge it from the blobs and reflog as if it never happened.
If you fail to prevent OpenAI from ingesting a private key, you have created a security incident.
I could imagine perhaps some system which rather than denying access might instead replace the key material from your .env key with "** redacted. This key material can be used via make, but can never be exfoltrated directly **" whenever that key is seen heading out towards the network...
OnePassword can do something like this where you put references to a path there instead of the key material, and then you wrap the invoke command with their CLI and it replaces them. So your local env file never has anything sensitive. A malicious agent could still exfiltrate if you give it access to debug tools on the running code though.
Yes. I found this quickly after wrapping codex in a launcher that uses bubblewrap to exclude certain files and directories based on a config file at the project root. My best solution so far is to also include instructions for the agent that explain that it is not allowed to see certain files, and that their inaccessibility is not an error, and that it must not attempt to access them through other means (e.g. via git history, etc.).
This has been a major improvement, but it's not foolproof.
A good but altogether separate note from the point I’m making: this lack of access is seen as an obstacle to overcome, and other means of access will be tried if available.
It’s a different mental model than a first party solution to “ignore” files.
Weirdly, the existing first party solutions around denying commands don't seem to help here.
Often enough, when one of the agents prompts for running "sudo", and I reject it, it will do what looks very much like malicious exploration to figure out how to handle things anyway, including once hijacking a separate shell's pty where I did have a valid sudo session already in order to execute some commands.
We don't yet have the capability to make these models behave in a consistent, deterministic, or safe manner yet, so a first party solution isn't even necessarily that much better. Especially if it gives a false sense of security.
Yes. Any sane IT department would not allow external AI services, only local ones. It is just too easy for your company's data to end up on the wrong servers. If not through faulty file permissions, then through employees who simply post company ideas.
Or just have a corporate contract that provides assurances.
Though really I’m skeptical that much corporate info is secret for competitive or privacy reasons.
Mostly it seems to be for liability / discovery reasons. Which are still legit of course, but ideas are a dime a dozen and every company has more than they know what to do with. It’s the resourcing and execution that are hard.
> Or just have a corporate contract that provides assurances.
After the massive copyright infringements and recent "who care's about the law anyway" stance of corporate America, trusting this could be a grand mistake.
It’s a risk. But odds are the upsides from the legal settlements would far outweigh the losses from your super secret memos about q3 budget planning being trained on.
Just treat it like a contract worker. They may violate their NDA. That doesn’t mean you never use any for any purpose ever. It’s a risk that’s been managed since before computers.
> I imagine this isn't resolved primarily because people expect it to apply to bash tool use, not just the "read" and "edit" tools, and people also expect those files to still be accessible i.e. if the agent invokes "make", which makes it impossible to solve perfectly.
Also, why would they add a feature to prevent data collection, if the data makes the company even more valuable and you might even get good deals from the current government if you provide the access for this data?
It seems insane to me that so many people are OK with this. Why is it necessary for an agent to upload every bit of data it sees to OpenAI at all? Particularly if my agents can’t remember anything beyond a single session, why should the data exist permanently anywhere but in its original location?
> Why is it necessary for an agent to upload every bit of data it sees to OpenAI at all?
The LLM is running at OpenAI. The agent doesn't see anything that doesn't get sent to OpenAI.
It's like running a compiler in the cloud and asking why you need to send your source code to it when you only want the binary to be on your local PC. It's because that's where the processing is going on and it can't process what it can't see.
> why should the data exist permanently anywhere but in its original location?
Sure, they don't necessarily have to retain it permanently.
Files that codex and any other coding agent has access to, should be opt-in NOT opt-out.
I think codex is not the right layer to solve this if you want a sane(one-click) UX.
We built our own internal sandboxing-terminal around claude and codex. Where a user-configured base-folder with low-risk code and creds is COPIED into the sandbox BEFORE new session creation.
There were many other UX related reasons to build our own terminal. Can share more if anyone is interested.
Hopefully they never actually implement this pointless feature because it will only give people a false sense of security given the unpredictable nature of LLMs. How could something like this even be enforced?
People just need to learn how to use the tools their system already provides them. i.e., chmod
The whole point of using an agent is that I don't want to learn everything. I fully expected the harness to read the .agentignore file and do what is needed to hide it from the LLM.
But apparently, even if implemented, that's not how it works!
Sounds like user error to me. Codex gives an llm a tool to allow it to use shell in the context of the host and user in which it is running. If a resource is sensitive, and accessible in that context, then the user is doing something wrong. Would you change your practices if you treated your coding agent as an untrusted human ssh'd under the identity you use for it?
In any case. There are solutions in the comments on the issue, as well as this hn thread.
I recently got the tool I use to orchestrate agents in (remote/secure) devcontainers open-sourced at work to solve this properly: https://github.com/nvidia/rumpelpod
As others here have pointed out, it's exceedingly unlikely that a blocklist like proposed in the issue would ever be complete. You shouldn't allow agents direct yolo-access to your machine if it has sensitive data.
Codex works particularly well as a remote agent harness because of its client-server architecture: The server component runs in the container, which might be remote, while the client runs locally. So, in contrast to e.g. the claude cli where the frontend also runs remotely, there's no lag when you write/edit prompts.
I agree a block list won't work. And unix file permissions may not be enough; I once saw Codex 5.4 use docker to execute a command as root since it couldn't run sudo. Running in a container may be the only solution:
> sudo needs an interactive password here, so I'll use Docker itself to prepare the bind-mount directory as root and hand ownership back to UID/GID 1000. That keeps the compose file's non-root runtime intact.
> Ran `docker run --rm -v /shares:/shares alpine:3.20 sh -c 'mkdir -p /shares/local-llm/models && chown 1000:1000 /shar...`
Have you tried running `rumpel codex foo123` in one of your repositories, asking it to commit something, then `rumpel merge foo123` to get the changes back to your local checkout? Use a different terminal for the merge command, or detach from the codex session with `ctrl-a d`. You can also look at the commit first with `rumpel review foo123`, or get a shell inside the agent environment via `rumpel enter foo123`.
It's a good idea as a hint to agents about what files it should ignore (because they'd be of no value and only chew up tokens).
However, using it to prevent exposure of secrets would be a BIG mistake. There's simply no way to guarantee that an agent will ignore things in the ignore file. And even a harness-enforced restriction would still be in-process, which a rogue agent could trivially compromise. For security, use a sandbox. Nothing else will do.
I work on a Linux sandbox that makes it easy to hide sensitive files from AI agents while keeping the files they need accessible. Check it out: https://github.com/wrr/drop
The only thing close to a guarantee is to give the agent exclusive access to a clean VM with precisely the information and permissions you want it to have.
I've been looking into a "workspace" concept that involves an entire cloud VM being spun up as part of an agent conversation such that code changes can be iterated without touching the user's local machine or other trusted contexts. All the agent's tools only have effect when supplied with a specific workspace guid. CLI tools like git are not authorized to talk to the remotes in this arrangement. The machine is initialized with a clone and no way to talk to origin. There are dedicated methods in the harness that can reach into the VM and pull out a change set for deterministic PR generation in the secure contexts (e.g. when the agent calls "ReadyForReview" or similar).
Sound like snake oil. How would this work? The app that the agent is developing needs access to the file, so access to it cannot be blocked. Just because read_file can not access it (I think current harnesses prevent reading .env files already), does not mean the contents will never be seen by the model.
However clever/stupid you believe LLMs are they are extremely capable of working around these sorts of restrictions. The ask is for .env files for whatever code you are writing so if the code it writes dosn't have access (i.e. filesystem/container) what is the point, if the code under development reads the env how dose codex debug it without accedentally reading the values from memory? Adding a security setting that dosn't work is much worse then not having one.
A lot of people have secrets/config files in the projects working directory but ignored by git i.e. `.env.local`
So they're following best practice, not committing secrets but agents running locally can still see them even if sandboxing to the working directory.
I've taken to storing configs using XDG_CONFIG_HOME and have the app auto resolve them by convention or take a cli arg to specify the config path. All secrets are in files, not env vars.
That way when using sandboxing the agent can never see the configs or secrets as outside the working directory.
There should be a standard around .agentignore file similarly to what happens with .gitignore file. Of course this could still be workarounded by agent bash command tools, but at least basic operations like reading and so on should be checked and prevented.
Bind mounts can work fine. Setting them up does require root though. Easiest would be if the harness offered to enable containment. Awkwardly, it would require root.
I don't think we should ask the agent runtime to police itself.
I contributed to a tool for this problem that is lower-friction than traditional sandboxing:
greywall.io
But you should use something to contain an agent runtime. The idea that people run things like codex on their machines with regular user permissions is baffling to me.
If you don't do that, the agent will be able to incidentally upload them. What if the model runs "rg foo", and one of those files contains the string "foo"? It uploads the tool output, which includes the file contents.
And so, the only solution is to make it so the codex process is unable to access those files, hence using a container, or unix permissions, or deleting the files. Which you can already do.
I imagine this isn't resolved primarily because people expect it to apply to bash tool use, not just the "read" and "edit" tools, and people also expect those files to still be accessible i.e. if the agent invokes "make", which makes it impossible to solve perfectly.
For instance, while I now know that file systems have permissions, before I became a programmer, I spent maybe ten years thinking of permissions as a special, obscure system thing that you should never touch.
For that matter, I suspect many people don't know basic things like that a file system isn't inherently the operating system.
And, where would you go to learn this information? Your Mac doesn't ship with a manual—how would you know one exists? Furthermore, I would wager that perhaps most people have never learned how anything works requiring a manual and are simply unaware that that's a thing.
All to say, I'm not sure "refusal" is the right term.
It’s not like gitignore should be independent from git
agents are not deterministic tools, they're not sandboxes or container runtimes or languages with capabilities models.
They're a way to run arbitrary commands.
It would be like saying that "xterm" should have a ".xtermnoexec" list of commands you can't run, or that VLC should have an option for actors it won't show.
terminals run shells which run commands, it's not really deeply aware of what commands your shell ultimately run, and it's not in xterm's job to setup a sandbox and strip out executables.
VLC displays pixels, it's not up to it to figure out if those pixels are a certain actor.
codex pipes text and tool calls back and forth between OpenAI's servers, and it barely understands what that text and those tool calls are, and especially if a given tool touched a file. If you want VLC to not display an actor, you need to add a layer on top of VLC to stop it displaying a list of movies. If you want codex to not display a file's contents, you need a layer on top of codex to prevent it going near that file.
- Changing directories with cd.
- Setting or unsetting the values of SHELL, PATH, HISTFILE, ENV, or BASH_ENV.
- Specifying command names containing /.
- Importing function definitions from the shell environment at startup.
- Parsing the values of BASHOPTS and SHELLOPTS from the shell environment at startup.
... some other things mainly preventing you from escaping or disabling the restricted mode.
The docs seem to suggest using alternate approaches.
> Modern systems provide more secure ways to implement a restricted environment, such as jails, zones, or containers.
https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/The-Restr...
If you fail to prevent a private key from being added to your repository, you can reverse this and purge it from the blobs and reflog as if it never happened.
If you fail to prevent OpenAI from ingesting a private key, you have created a security incident.
This has been a major improvement, but it's not foolproof.
It’s a different mental model than a first party solution to “ignore” files.
Often enough, when one of the agents prompts for running "sudo", and I reject it, it will do what looks very much like malicious exploration to figure out how to handle things anyway, including once hijacking a separate shell's pty where I did have a valid sudo session already in order to execute some commands.
We don't yet have the capability to make these models behave in a consistent, deterministic, or safe manner yet, so a first party solution isn't even necessarily that much better. Especially if it gives a false sense of security.
Though really I’m skeptical that much corporate info is secret for competitive or privacy reasons.
Mostly it seems to be for liability / discovery reasons. Which are still legit of course, but ideas are a dime a dozen and every company has more than they know what to do with. It’s the resourcing and execution that are hard.
After the massive copyright infringements and recent "who care's about the law anyway" stance of corporate America, trusting this could be a grand mistake.
Just treat it like a contract worker. They may violate their NDA. That doesn’t mean you never use any for any purpose ever. It’s a risk that’s been managed since before computers.
The problem to be solved is how do you define task-specific least privilege versions of your coding agent.
Also, why would they add a feature to prevent data collection, if the data makes the company even more valuable and you might even get good deals from the current government if you provide the access for this data?
Assuming that file permissions will save you is naively dangerous.
The LLM is running at OpenAI. The agent doesn't see anything that doesn't get sent to OpenAI.
It's like running a compiler in the cloud and asking why you need to send your source code to it when you only want the binary to be on your local PC. It's because that's where the processing is going on and it can't process what it can't see.
> why should the data exist permanently anywhere but in its original location?
Sure, they don't necessarily have to retain it permanently.
Call the police!
People just need to learn how to use the tools their system already provides them. i.e., chmod
But apparently, even if implemented, that's not how it works!
In any case. There are solutions in the comments on the issue, as well as this hn thread.
As others here have pointed out, it's exceedingly unlikely that a blocklist like proposed in the issue would ever be complete. You shouldn't allow agents direct yolo-access to your machine if it has sensitive data.
Codex works particularly well as a remote agent harness because of its client-server architecture: The server component runs in the container, which might be remote, while the client runs locally. So, in contrast to e.g. the claude cli where the frontend also runs remotely, there's no lag when you write/edit prompts.
> sudo needs an interactive password here, so I'll use Docker itself to prepare the bind-mount directory as root and hand ownership back to UID/GID 1000. That keeps the compose file's non-root runtime intact.
> Ran `docker run --rm -v /shares:/shares alpine:3.20 sh -c 'mkdir -p /shares/local-llm/models && chown 1000:1000 /shar...`
Edit: would love a couple of pictures/video of how you use it. I kind of get the idea, but it seems like more hassle then it would be worth?
Your comment of codex makes it seem like I might be missing something tho.
Have you tried running `rumpel codex foo123` in one of your repositories, asking it to commit something, then `rumpel merge foo123` to get the changes back to your local checkout? Use a different terminal for the merge command, or detach from the codex session with `ctrl-a d`. You can also look at the commit first with `rumpel review foo123`, or get a shell inside the agent environment via `rumpel enter foo123`.
It's a good idea as a hint to agents about what files it should ignore (because they'd be of no value and only chew up tokens).
However, using it to prevent exposure of secrets would be a BIG mistake. There's simply no way to guarantee that an agent will ignore things in the ignore file. And even a harness-enforced restriction would still be in-process, which a rogue agent could trivially compromise. For security, use a sandbox. Nothing else will do.
I do AI sandboxes (FOSS, free forever, no rug pull): https://github.com/kstenerud/yoloai
I've been looking into a "workspace" concept that involves an entire cloud VM being spun up as part of an agent conversation such that code changes can be iterated without touching the user's local machine or other trusted contexts. All the agent's tools only have effect when supplied with a specific workspace guid. CLI tools like git are not authorized to talk to the remotes in this arrangement. The machine is initialized with a clone and no way to talk to origin. There are dedicated methods in the harness that can reach into the VM and pull out a change set for deterministic PR generation in the secure contexts (e.g. when the agent calls "ReadyForReview" or similar).
So they're following best practice, not committing secrets but agents running locally can still see them even if sandboxing to the working directory.
I've taken to storing configs using XDG_CONFIG_HOME and have the app auto resolve them by convention or take a cli arg to specify the config path. All secrets are in files, not env vars.
That way when using sandboxing the agent can never see the configs or secrets as outside the working directory.
Makes me think of docker secret where the secrets are exposed as files and accessable only from inside the container.
If the development environment uses docker then thats a solution too I guess
I contributed to a tool for this problem that is lower-friction than traditional sandboxing:
greywall.io
But you should use something to contain an agent runtime. The idea that people run things like codex on their machines with regular user permissions is baffling to me.