Running coding agents locally, do you sandbox them or trust them?
Developers running coding agents like Claude Code or Codex locally are concerned about security. They are exploring methods to limit agent access to their systems, considering options such as dev containers, separate user accounts, or full VMs. Each method has drawbacks, like shared kernels in containers or the inconvenience of VMs. The community is discussing whether any agents have caused destructive actions and what preventative measures were taken.
Unlike general discussions about AI safety, this thread focuses specifically on practical, local sandboxing methods for coding agents and their real-world limitations.
时间与来源
时间显示为 UTC
显示时区：UTC
本地时区尚不可用，暂时显示 UTC。
发布当时偏移：UTC+02026年10月8日 22:12 UTC
收录当时偏移：UTC+02026年10月9日 06:00 UTC
- 发布
- 2026年10月8日 22:12
- 收录
- 2026年10月9日 06:00
- 来源类型
- 开发者社区
- 档位
- 社区
- 信源状态
- 同步延迟
档位是按信源手工设定的编辑判断，不是逐条打分。
讨论趋势
百分比基于采集到的讨论信号，不代表新增评论数或独立参与人数。曲线仅用于同一话题在不同时段的比较。
For people running Claude Code, Codex, or local-model agents against their own machine... how are you limiting what they can touch?
The options I've seen are a dev container, a separate user account, a full VM, or just watching closely. Each one leaks somewhere (containers share the kernel, VMs are annoying, and watching doesn't scale past an afternoon).
We went with a microVM that only sees the workspace you share, plus a policy check on each tool call. There's a free desktop tool on our side if anyone wants to compare notes, but mostly I want to know where people draw the line between convenience and isolation.
Has anyone had an agent actually do something destructive? What did you change afterward?