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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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!
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 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.
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`.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not sure I agree?
It’s not like gitignore should be independent from git
I'm a fan of belt and suspenders.
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.
But that means the process can’t use the key for network requests, right?
Just be aware that AI agents will explore alternate means of accessing said files: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48348578
If you’re already running codex as a different user to limit its file permissions, why would you add it to the docker group?
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.
Lack of knowledge and the desire to have it run containers for things.
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.
Yes, this was solved decades ago. How do you stop a human from reading one of your files?
> How do you stop a human from reading one of your files?
Call the police!
> 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?
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.
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!
How would it prevent an agent from writing a script that discovers the secret file? It's not magic.
It can't. As others pointed out, its the wrong layer to implement the security feature. The agent needs to operate in an isolated user / container.
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 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.
Neat tool! Will have to check it out
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.
Yeah I should add a video to the README.
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`.
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.
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).
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
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.
.agentsignore is NOT a security tool.
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
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.
This should be an open standard like AGENTS.md or skills. What do other harnesses do?
I believe JetBrains products like Junie use the neutral term .aiignore for this funtionality.
Do not store secrets in the repository in files, but inject them during runtime. Then the agents have no way to access them.
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.
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.
it has been a year and still it is not resolved
It's not their problem to solve. Don't give it access to sensitive files on the first place.