Hacker News Reader

If the agent you are running really wanted to it could easily find a way to mount the windows folders and read them all. WSL isn't a security boundary, you are only barely more protected than people running grok in their home directory.

View on HN

it is not about "security" but it is more about confinement. And how could it do that without sudo rights?

Still, you are barely more protected than someone running this as non root at home. By your same logic you could “confine” the agent to any arbitrary directory on your filesystem and say it’s sufficient.

Yes, that is exactly the point I am making. The agent / cli is confined within the WSL2 environment. How is it "barley" protected? Neither you nor the other guy have yet answered this question.

I never claimed WSL2 is a security sandbox. I am saying running it in a container or WSL2 allows you to severly limit the blast radius. I am not expecting the agent to be malicious, but I am expecting it to do unexpected things.

That’s a fair approach, thanks for elaborating. I think the main point of contention is there is an expectation this software should be more reliable, that doesn’t take away from your approach, running close sourced software like a harness (or operating system) is asking for problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com