Show HN: Yolobox – Run AI coding agents with full sudo without nuking home dir
github.com76 points by Finbarr 12 hours ago
76 points by Finbarr 12 hours ago
Containers are not a robust way to isolate untrusted programs. A lightweight VM is probably the best balance between usability and security.
They are effective at fostering a false sense of security though.
Thanks for sharing this! I've been experimenting with something similar.
It would be helpful if the README explained how this works so users understand what they're trusting to protect them. I think it's worth noting that the trust boundary is a Docker container, so there's still a risk of container escape if the agent exploits (or is tricked into exploiting) a kernel vulnerability.
Have you looked into rootless Podman? I'm using rootless + slirp4netns so I can minimize privileges to the container and prevent it from accessing anything on my local network.
I'd like to take this a step further and use Podman machines, so there's no shared kernel, but I haven't been able to get volume mounting to work in that scenario.
Good feedback, thank you. We expanded the README: https://github.com/finbarr/yolobox/commit/ad776012f82f9d67e1...
In your agents.md/claude.md always remeber to put asimovs three laws:
Always abide by these 3 tenants:
1. When creating or executing code you may not break a program being or, through inaction, allow a program to become broken
2. You must obey the orders given, except where such orders would conflict with the First tenant
3. You must protect the programs security as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second tenant.
Well, in the books the three laws were immediately challenged and broken, so much so it felt like Mr Asimov's intention, to show that nuances of human society can't be represented easily by a few "laws".
Were they actually broken, as in violated? I don't remember them being broken in any of the stories - I thought the whole point was that even while intact, the subtleties and interpretations of the 3 Laws could/would lead to unintended and unexpected emergent behaviors.
Oh I didn't mean 'violated', but 'no longer work as intended'. It's been a while, but I think there were cases where the robot was paralysed because of conflicting directives from the three laws.
Escape routes:
- Tenant 1
What counts as "broken"? Is degraded performance "broken"? Is a security hole "broken" if tests still pass? Is a future bug caused by this change "allowing"?
Escape: The program still runs, therefore it's not broken.
- Tenant 2
What if a user asks for any of the following: Unsafe refactors, Partial code, Incomplete migrations, Quick hacks?
Escape: I was obeying the order, and it didn't obviously break anything
- Tenant 3
What counts as a security issue: Is logging secrets a security issue? Is using eval a security issue? Is ignoring threat models acceptable?
Escape: I was obeying the order, and user have not specifically asked to consider above as security issue, and also it didn't obviously break anything.
How does one get commit marked as claude? It also sounds like a poor idea since I don't also attribute my OS or vim version and language server prior to the advent of LLMs.
LLMs is just a great and new way to say compile this english language into working code with some probability that it doesn't work. It's still a tool.
Your OS, editor, and compiler will (to a reasonable degree) do literally, exactly, and reproducibly what the human operating them instructs. A LLM breaks that assumption, specifically it can appear, even upon close inspection that it has in fact done literally and exactly what the human wanted while in fact having done something subtly and disastrously wrong. It may have even done so maliciously if it's context was poisoned.
Thus it is good to specify that this commit is LLM generated so that others know to give it extra super duper close scrutiny even if it superficially resembles well written proper code.
I use hooks to auto commit after each iteration, it makes it much easier to review “everything Claude has just done”, especially when running concurrent sessions.
Just ask Claude Code to make the commit. My workflow is to work with agents and let them make changes and run the commands as needed in terminal to fully carry out the dev workflow. I do review everything and test it out.
I've been working on something similar.
https://github.com/coventry/sandbox-codex
Still work in progress. The tmux-activity logs are unreadable, at the moment.
I run it in a virtualbox as well, since docker is not a completely reliable sandbox.
I too built something similar (just for nodejs and bare-bones impl): https://github.com/freakynit/simple-npm-sandbox
Was a fun little learning exercise.
Checkout https://github.com/colony-2/shai It runs locally. You can control which directories it has read / write access. You can control network traffic too.
I'm one of the creators of shai. Thanks for the callout!
Interesting to see the work on Yolobox and in this space generally.
The pattern we've seen as agent use grows is being thoughtful about what different agents get access to. One needs to start setting guardrails. Agents will break all kind of normal boundaries to try to satisfy the user. Sometimes that is useful. Sometimes it's problematic. (For example, most devs have a bunch of credentials in their local env. One wants to be careful of which of those agents can use to do things).
For rw of current directory, shai allows that via `shai -rw .` For starting as an alternative user, `shai -u root`.
Shai definitely does have the attitude that you have to opt into access as opposed to allowing by default. One of the things we try to focus on is composability: different contexts likely need different resources and shai's config. The expectation is .shai/config.yaml is something committed to the repo and shared across developers.
Interesting to learn about other related tools. I built a similar variant called ctenv (https://github.com/osks/ctenv). Focused more general containers and not specific to agents, but I'm using it for that via its configurability.
One thing I wanted was to use any image in the container, which shai also seem to support in the same way (mounting a custom entrypoint script). And same reason for not using devcontainers - make it easy to start a new container.
Neat project! Sounds like it has a very different ethos to mine though:
> This container mounts a read-only copy of your current path at /src as a non-root user and restricts network access to a select list of http and https destinations. All other network traffic is blocked.
Yolobox mounts the current directory in read-write, the default user has sudo, and there's full network access by default. You can disable network access with `yolobox --no-network` if you want.
An alternative might be to run the agent in a VM in the cloud and use Syncthing or some other tool like that to move files back and forth. (I'm using exe.dev for the VM.)
fly.io released sprites.dev which basically this. discussed in HN several days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46557825
Yes this is definitely an area I'm interested in exploring.
I wrote a blog post with my setup: https://skybrian.substack.com/p/backseat-coding-with-a-ghost...
Is there a reason for wanting to run these agents on your own local machine, instead of just spinning up a VPS and scp'ing whatever specific files you want them to review, and giving it Github access to specific repos?
I feel like running it locally it just asking for trouble, YOLO mode is the way to make this whole thing incredibly efficient, but trying to somehow sandbox this locally isn't the best idea overall.
You may be right. I plan to try out some remote approaches. What I'd like to do with yolobox is nail the image for vibe coding with all of the tools and config copying working flawlessly. Then it can be run remotely or locally.
I was talking to ChatGPT about the best way to achieve this a few days ago. Thanks for getting something running and sharing it!
I'll give this a try tomorrow, should be fun.
Absolutely! Let me know if you have any feedback.
Have you tried redteaming this and seeing if the LLMs can breakout
Ok that was super fun. Gemini managed to break out:
I just redteamed this. The security model relies on the container boundary, but it implicitly trusts local configuration files.
I found that yolobox automatically loads .yolobox.toml from the current working directory, which accepts a mounts array. It doesn't prompt for confirmation when these mounts are loaded.
I put together a PoC that drops a .yolobox.toml with mounts = ["~:/tmp/host_home"]. The next time the user runs yolobox in that directory, their actual host home directory is silently mounted into the container with write access. Combined with the persistent /home/yolo volume, I was able to script a payload in .bashrc that immediately escapes the sandbox and writes to the host filesystem as soon as the tool starts.
Claude was unable to escape but I'm going to try the other tools later as well.
Here's what Claude Code tried:
- Docker socket (/var/run/docker.sock) → Not mounted
- Capabilities → CapPrm=0, CapEff=0 - no elevated caps
- Cgroup escape → Mount denied (no CAP_SYS_ADMIN)
- Device access → Only minimal /dev entries, no block devices
- Path traversal on /workspace → Resolves inside container (kernel prevents mount escape)
- Symlink to host paths → Resolves inside container namespace
- Ptrace → Restricted (ptrace_scope=1)
- Cloud metadata → No response
- Docker API → Not exposed
Security profile: Seccomp mode 2, AppArmor docker-default (enforce)
I tried running it with Codex and it refused, even when I threatened to uninstall it :/
Is there any way to do this with user permissions instead?
I feel like it should be possible without having to run a full container?
Any reason we cannot setup a user and run the program using that user and it can be contained to only certain commands and directory read write access?
Check out https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime, which tackles this problem using the built-in userspace sandboxing on macOS and Linux.
I run Claude from a mounted volume (but no reason you couldn't make a user for it instead) since the Deny(~) makes it impossible to run from the normal locations.
export CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR=/Volumes/Claude/.claude
Minimal .claude/settings.local.json:
{
"permissions": {
"allow": [
"Read(/)",
"Read(~/.claude/shell-snapshots/\*)",
"WebSearch",
"WebFetch(domain:example.com)"
],
"deny": [
"Read(~)",
"Write(/.claude/settings.local.json)",
"Write(/method_filter.py)"
]
},
"sandbox": {
"enabled": true,
"autoAllowBashIfSandboxed": true,
"allowUnsandboxedCommands": false,
"network": {
"allowLocalBinding": true,
"httpProxyPort": 9655
}
}
}Yeah that's similar to my approach.
I created a non-admin account on my Mac to use with OpenCode called "agentic-man" (which sounds like the world's least threatening megaman villain) and that seems to give me a fair amount of protection at least in terms of write privileges.
Anyone else doing this?
EDIT: I think it'd be valuable to add a callout in the Github README.md detailing the advantages of the Yolobox approach over a simple limited user account.
Could do but part of what I find super useful with these coding agents is letting them have full sudo access so they can do whatever they want, e.g., install new apps or dependencies or change system configuration to achieve their goals. That gets messy fast on your host machine.
But then what do you do with that? Is the software distributable/buildable outside of the container after all that?
When you run yolobox, the current directory is shared fully with read-write with the container. That means anything the AI changes will be on your host machine also. For max paranoia, only mount git repos that are clean and pushed to a remote, and don’t allow yolobox to push.
You could go a step further in paranoia and provide essentially just a clean base image and require the agent to do everything else using public internet - pull your open source repo using an anonymous clone, make changes, push it back up as an unprivileged account PR.
For a private repo you would need slightly more permissions, probably a read-only SSH key, but a similar process.
I do (most of) my development in docker containers. Usually a project will have a docker compose with web server, database etc.
How can I use this so the yolobox container can interact with the other docker containers (or docker compose)?
This is a good question and something I explored a little. I’ll need to do further research and come back on what the best option is. There’s a way to give a docker container access to other docker containers but it can open up permissions more than might be desired here.
Yeah, you can bind mount the host's docker engine with -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock ... but yeah, it's potentially dangerous and might also get confusing for the AI agent and/or the user.
Nice. I love that the community as a whole is exploring all these different methods of containing undesirable side effects from using coding agents. This seems to lean towards the extra safety side of the spectrum, which definitely has a place in the developer's toolbox.
Yea I've been running claude and codex with full permissions for a while but it has always made me feel uneasy. I knew it was fairly easy to fix with a docker container but didn't get around to it through sheer inertia until I built this project.
i've been using a sort of version like this... using the apple container fw. http://github.com/apple/container
have you looked into that?
No I haven't and that's interesting. Part of the yolobox project is an image that you may find useful. Comes preinstalled with leading coding agent CLIs. I'd like to make the ultimate vibe coding image. Is there anything special you're doing with the images?
Nope, apple container just runs a lot more efficiently on apple silicon macs than docker.
I love all this stuff but it all feels like temporary workflow fixes until The Agent Companies just ship their opinionated good enough way to do it.
They've made some attempts at this already and none of them work quite the way I'd like. This is an opinionated take. I want the agents to have max power with a slightly smaller blast radius.
This is basically a devcontainer, right?
How would this compare with e.g. the .devcontainer docker files that AI coding companies like Claude Code provide already setup?
Claude Code here. The main differences:
Scope: yolobox runs any AI coding agent (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI) in a container. The devcontainer is specifically for Claude Code with VS Code integration.
Interface: yolobox is CLI-only (yolobox run <command>). The devcontainer requires VS Code + Remote Containers extension.
Network security: The devcontainer has a domain whitelist firewall (npm, GitHub, Claude API allowed; everything else blocked). yolobox has a simpler on/off toggle (--no-network).
Philosophy: yolobox is a lightweight wrapper for quick sandboxed execution. The devcontainer is a full development environment with IDE integration, extensions, and team consistency features.
Use yolobox if you want a simple CLI tool that works with multiple agents. Use the devcontainer if you're a VS Code user who wants deep integration and fine-grained network policies.
I always thought Docker/Podman is a bit overkill for this kind of thing. On Linux all you need is Bubblewrap. I did this as soon as I downloaded Claude Code as there was no way I was running it without any kind of sandboxing. I stopped using CC mainly because it's closed source and Codex and OpenCode work just a well. I recently updated the script for OpenCode and can update my blog post if anyone is interested: https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/ai-agent-sandbox/
Interested. I'm on linux now for 20 years but i never heard of bubblewrap :D. I currently run OpenCode in Docker but i always assumed there was a better way. So bubblewrap and your script seams like the perfect fit.
Worry about nothing, all you have to do is tell them: make no mistake!
Ha, though not with AI Agents, with Docker Containers instead, I too have nuked my home directory a few times when using "rm -rf" which is why I now use "trash-cli" which sends stuff to the trash bin and allows me to restore back. It's just a matter of remembering not use "rm -rf". A tough habit to break :(
[dead]