Comment by egorfine
4 days ago
"s" in "opencode" stands for security.
You should't really run a coding harness on your host computer anyway, because it is impossible to protect yourself from prompt injections and from an incredible amount of security vulnerabilities in the vibecoded plugins.
Security is fundamentally unachievable in popular coding harnesses.
The only right way to use it is in an isolated environment.
This isn't really true. You're talking about unattended execution, where the user doesn't review each action before letting the model proceed. I agree that it's bad to run that on a machine with important data, but I disagree that coding harnesses are fundamentally insecure just because the practice of reviewing each tool call has gone out of fashion. I do see harnesses these days not designed with that in mind, but that just makes those particular harnesses insecure, not the fundamental idea of harnesses as a concept.
Okay, let's use a stricter definition: coding harnesses are inherently insecure.
No harness is inherently secure or insecure based on its capabilities alone. Harness security, at least with regards to the model itself, has strictly to do with whether or not the model is allowed to take unauthorized action. If it is, the harness is insecure in that it enables the risk of unauthorized activity from the model. Otherwise, any particular harness may be insecure in other ways, but would not fundamentally be insecure in that way.
By this logic, a harness doesn't even have to be related to programming to be insecure. Any harness that enables unauthorized activity from the model would be insecure. For example, this would include any system that allows a model to make an unauthorized management decision.
1 reply →