← Back to context

Comment by jibber1984v

2 months ago

To 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.

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.

  • In this scenario, more appropriate is the son takes money out of shop’s cash register when shop owner stepped away, and then son used that money to pay the shop owner.