News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Agent Safehouse – macOS-native sandboxing for local agents by andybak on Sunday March 08, 2026 @07:42PM (#47302893)
> solved

Have you considered that it's unsolvable? Or - at least - there is an irreconcilable tension between capability and safety. And people will always choose the former if given the choice.

Re:Agent Safehouse – macOS-native sandboxing for local agents by skybrian on Sunday March 08, 2026 @10:37PM (#47304256)
I don't know about solved, but I've seen some interesting ideas for making it safer, so I think it could be improved.

One idea is to have the coding agent write a security policy in plan mode before reading any untrusted files:

https://dystopiabreaker.xyz/fsm-prompt-injection

Re:Agent Safehouse – macOS-native sandboxing for local agents by zmmmmm on Monday March 09, 2026 @01:02AM (#47305054)
in a pure sense no, it's probably not solvable completely. But in a practical sense, yes, I think it's solvable enough to support broad use cases of significant value.

The most unsolvable part is prompt injection. For that you need full tracking of the trust level of content the agent is exposed to and a method of linking that to what actions it has accessible to it. I actually think this needs to be fully integrated to the sandboxing solution. Once an agent is "tainted" its sandbox should inherently shrink down to the radius where risk is balanced with value. For example, my fully trusted agent might have a balance of $1000 in my AWS account, while a tainted one might have that reduced to $50.

So another aspect of sanboxing is to make the security model dynamic.

Re:Agent Safehouse – macOS-native sandboxing for local agents by schmuhblaster on Monday March 09, 2026 @10:36AM (#47309702)
I am experimenting [0] with compiling markdown to a DSL first. Then running a static analysis on the DSL code. Still at an early stage though.

[0] https://deepclause.substack.com/p/static-taint-analysis-for-...