3 ms·
>> bash actually has a "restricted" mode ... > Does that work? I've never seen it used. It seems easy to escape. Yes, it does work for its intended purpose. I
by AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
>> bash actually has a "restricted" mode ...
> Does that work? I've never seen it used. It seems easy to escape.
Yes, it does work for its intended purpose. It has often been used in combination with chroot[0] as well.
> The docs seem to suggest using alternate approaches.
>> Modern systems provide more secure ways to implement a restricted environment, such as jails, zones, or containers.
These approaches are not mutually exclusive with restricted shell use. For example, one could use FreeBSD jails to secure Apache httpd and/or Nginx and still employ a restricted shell to evaluate requests.
0 - https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=chroot&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+15.1-RELEASE+and+Ports.quarterly&format=html https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=chroot&apropos=0&s...
- 8organicbits 3mo agoI'm seeing a ton of restricted mode escapes documented online, like https://0xffsec.com/handbook/shells/restricted-shells/ https://0xffsec.com/handbook/shells/restricted-shells/ so I'm not so sure. When basic utilities like less, man, and awk can run subshells it's quite a mess. Bash restricted mode needing a chroot may suggest that Claude also needs a chroot (or restricted file permissions, jail, etc).
- AdieuToLogic 3mo ago> Bash restricted mode needing a chroot may suggest that Claude also needs a chroot (or restricted file permissions, jail, etc). I believe running coding agents within a jail/container is a "best practice" to limit their blast radius. At least, this is what people I respect have conveyed to me.