4 ms·

Security is quite impossible because they need access to your data which makes it insecure by default. Sandboxing fixes only one security issue.

by croes 8mo ago

stavros 8mo ago
That's like saying you shouldn't vet your PA because they'll have access to your email anyway. Yeah, but I still don't give them my house keys.
- croes 8mo ago
  More like giving your access to a PA service company where you don’t know the actual PA. But you know those PAs have done some terrible mistake, are quite stupid sometimes and fall for tricks like prompt injection. If you give a stranger access to your credit card it doesn’t get less risky just because you rent them a apartment in a different town. The problem isn’t the deleted data but that AI "thought" it’s the right thing to do.
  - stavros 8mo ago
    Defining the security boundary is more secure than not defining it. This is a meaningful difference between what my bot does (has access to what you give it access to) vs what OpenClaw does (has access to everything, whether you want it to or not). If you want perfectly secure computing, never connect your computer to the network and make sure you live in a vault. For everyone else, there's a tradeoff to be made, and saying "there's always a risk" is so obvious that it's not even worth saying.
    - croes 8mo ago
      Of course it‘s more secure but it doesn’t mean it’s secure.
      - scdlbx 8mo ago
        Nothing is secure.
        croes 8mo ago
        But there is a difference between insecure against your actions or because of you actions. Someone breaking in into your system and doing damage is different to handing out the key to an agent that does the damage. AI has still too many limits to hand over that of responsibility to it. And because it also endangers third parties it’s reckless to do so.
CuriouslyC 8mo ago
This is overly pessimistic. Prompt injection can be largely mitigated by creating a protocol firewall between agents that access untrusted content and agents that perform computation: https://sibylline.dev/articles/2026-02-22-schema-strict-prompt-injection-firewall/ https://sibylline.dev/articles/2026-02-22-schema-strict-prom... I'm working on an autonomous agent framework that is set up this way (along with full authz policy support via OPA, monitoring via OTel and a centralized tool gateway with CLI). https://github.com/sibyllinesoft/smith-core https://github.com/sibyllinesoft/smith-core for the interested. It doesn't have the awesome power of a 30 year old meme like the OP but it makes up for it with care.
- croes 8mo ago
  Agent hacking is just a the beginning, it’s a bit early to think it’s a solved problem

Security is quite impossible because they need access to your data which makes it insecure by default. Sandboxing fixes only one security issue.

by croes 8mo ago

Security is quite impossible because they need access to your data which makes it insecure by default. Sandboxing fixes only one security issue.

stavros 8mo ago

That's like saying you shouldn't vet your PA because they'll have access to your email anyway. Yeah, but I still don't give them my house keys.

croes 8mo ago
More like giving your access to a PA service company where you don’t know the actual PA. But you know those PAs have done some terrible mistake, are quite stupid sometimes and fall for tricks like prompt injection. If you give a stranger access to your credit card it doesn’t get less risky just because you rent them a apartment in a different town. The problem isn’t the deleted data but that AI "thought" it’s the right thing to do.
- stavros 8mo ago
  Defining the security boundary is more secure than not defining it. This is a meaningful difference between what my bot does (has access to what you give it access to) vs what OpenClaw does (has access to everything, whether you want it to or not). If you want perfectly secure computing, never connect your computer to the network and make sure you live in a vault. For everyone else, there's a tradeoff to be made, and saying "there's always a risk" is so obvious that it's not even worth saying.
  - croes 8mo ago
    Of course it‘s more secure but it doesn’t mean it’s secure.
    - scdlbx 8mo ago
      Nothing is secure.
      - croes 8mo ago
        But there is a difference between insecure against your actions or because of you actions. Someone breaking in into your system and doing damage is different to handing out the key to an agent that does the damage. AI has still too many limits to hand over that of responsibility to it. And because it also endangers third parties it’s reckless to do so.

CuriouslyC 8mo ago

This is overly pessimistic. Prompt injection can be largely mitigated by creating a protocol firewall between agents that access untrusted content and agents that perform computation: https://sibylline.dev/articles/2026-02-22-schema-strict-prompt-injection-firewall/ https://sibylline.dev/articles/2026-02-22-schema-strict-prom... I'm working on an autonomous agent framework that is set up this way (along with full authz policy support via OPA, monitoring via OTel and a centralized tool gateway with CLI). https://github.com/sibyllinesoft/smith-core https://github.com/sibyllinesoft/smith-core for the interested. It doesn't have the awesome power of a 30 year old meme like the OP but it makes up for it with care.

croes 8mo ago
Agent hacking is just a the beginning, it’s a bit early to think it’s a solved problem