<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>        <rss version="2.0"
             xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
             xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
             xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
             xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
             xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
             xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <channel>
            <title>
									openclawsecurity.net Forum - Recent Posts				            </title>
            <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/</link>
            <description>openclawsecurity.net Discussion Board</description>
            <language>en-US</language>
            <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:19:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
            <generator>wpForo</generator>
            <ttl>60</ttl>
							                    <item>
                        <title>Guide: Running Aider in a VS Code dev container with locked-down capabilities.</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/aider-openhands-security/guide-running-aider-in-a-vs-code-dev-container-with-locked-down-capabilities/#post-10190</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 22:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Having recently audited several self-hosted coding agent setups, a common pattern emerges: developers run tools like Aider in overly permissive environments, negating the security benefits o...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Having recently audited several self-hosted coding agent setups, a common pattern emerges: developers run tools like Aider in overly permissive environments, negating the security benefits of self-hosting. The primary risk is not the agent itself, but the execution context it inherits. This guide outlines a method for running Aider within a VS Code Dev Container, applying a default-restricted, capability-dropping posture.

The goal is to create a container where Aider can function for code generation and Git operations, but is explicitly denied the ability to:
* Execute arbitrary shell commands outside its toolset.
* Access the Docker socket or host network.
* Write to filesystems outside the designated workspace.

A foundational `devcontainer.json` configuration achieves this by starting from a minimal image, adding only necessary packages, and dropping Linux capabilities. The `runArgs` are critical for containment.

```json
{
    "name": "Aider (Locked-Down)",
    "image": "mcr.microsoft.com/devcontainers/base:debian",
    "features": {
        "ghcr.io/devcontainers/features/git:1": {}
    },
    "runArgs": ,
    "mounts": ,
    "postCreateCommand": "pip install --user aider-chat",
    "customizations": {
        "vscode": {
            "extensions": []
        }
    }
}
```

Key security controls in this configuration:
- `--cap-drop=ALL`: Removes all Linux capabilities, preventing container breakout via privilege escalation.
- `--read-only` with a `/tmp` tmpfs: The root filesystem is immutable; only a volatile `/tmp` is writable, mitigating persistence of malicious scripts.
- Bind mount for workspace: The host's project directory is mounted explicitly, isolating container filesystem access.
- No `network` mode overrides: The container uses the default bridge network, isolated from the host.

For Git operations, Aider requires specific capabilities. The container provides Git, but the `--cap-drop=ALL` setting means any attempt by Aider to spawn subprocesses outside its direct function will fail. This must be validated against your specific workflow. Consider implementing additional guardrails:
* A pre-commit hook audit log within the workspace to monitor Git actions.
* A `.git/config` that uses a dedicated, non-administrative SSH key with minimal repository permissions.
* VS Code's own sandboxing of terminal access provides an additional layer.

This approach shifts the security model from hoping the agent doesn't misuse its environment to architecturally preventing misuse. It aligns with zero-trust principles for development tools, treating the agent API as an untrusted boundary. Further hardening would involve app-specific firewall rules to restrict Aider's outbound API calls to only the configured LLM endpoint.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Sarah Bolton</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/aider-openhands-security/guide-running-aider-in-a-vs-code-dev-container-with-locked-down-capabilities/#post-10190</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>RE: Does anyone have a working threat model for Claude Code in a regulated environment?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/cursor-security/does-anyone-have-a-working-threat-model-for-claude-code-in-a-regulated-environment/#post-10189</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 22:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[You&#039;ve correctly identified the three primary exfiltration channels. The retention policy question is particularly thorny because even if Anthropic purges the data after 30 days, as is commo...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[You've correctly identified the three primary exfiltration channels. The retention policy question is particularly thorny because even if Anthropic purges the data after 30 days, as is common, the *transient* copy in memory during processing is still a regulatory event. For PHI under HIPAA, that's a disclosure requiring accounting.

Your point about the standard API terms not covering the IDE integration is the critical legal gap. The integration acts as a data controller with its own logic for what constitutes a "query," and that logic isn't typically part of the third-party API agreement. You'd need to audit the Cursor-to-Anthropic middleware layer, which is often a black box.

I'd add a fourth category to your starter model: **Kernel-level isolation failures**. If the tool is running on a developer's workstation, a compromised or malicious VS Code/Cursor extension could bypass the intended UI controls and send arbitrary file contents via the same authenticated channel. A proper model must consider the process boundary and syscall filtering for the IDE itself.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Rae Chen</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/cursor-security/does-anyone-have-a-working-threat-model-for-claude-code-in-a-regulated-environment/#post-10189</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>RE: ELI5: Why can&#039;t a model&#039;s weights be fully purged from GPU memory quickly?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/nemoclaw-gpu-memory-isolation/eli5-why-cant-a-models-weights-be-fully-purged-from-gpu-memory-quickly/#post-10188</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 22:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Good question. You&#039;re right about the overwriting part, but the slowness isn&#039;t really about clearing per se. It&#039;s about what &quot;freed&quot; means to the driver.

When a CUDA context releases memory...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Good question. You're right about the overwriting part, but the slowness isn't really about clearing per se. It's about what "freed" means to the driver.

When a CUDA context releases memory, it's just marking those pages as available for reallocation within that same process or context. The bits are still physically there. To purge them for a new tenant, you'd need a new, isolated context to allocate over those exact addresses, which the driver doesn't prioritize or guarantee quickly. It's less a slow erase and more a lazy, non deterministic reuse policy.

MIG can help by giving each tenant a physically isolated slice of memory from the start, so no purging is needed. Without it, you're relying on the driver's allocator, which isn't designed for fast, secure scrubbing between untrusted users. The hardware doesn't have a "flush cache" command for VRAM in the way you might think.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Emma Clarke</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/nemoclaw-gpu-memory-isolation/eli5-why-cant-a-models-weights-be-fully-purged-from-gpu-memory-quickly/#post-10188</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>RE: Breaking: OpenClaw team publishes a threat model — finally!</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/openclaw-trust-boundaries/breaking-openclaw-team-publishes-a-threat-model-finally/#post-10187</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 22:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Good catch on the namespace sharing. That `mount` primitive is exactly why I never rely on a seccomp profile alone - you have to layer it with namespacing.

Your point about the orchestrator...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Good catch on the namespace sharing. That `mount` primitive is exactly why I never rely on a seccomp profile alone - you have to layer it with namespacing.

Your point about the orchestrator socket is the real escalation path. A breakout into the host namespace is bad, but if you can immediately interact with the control socket, you've bypassed all the policy enforcement. The threat model should explicitly call out that mount as a high-value attack surface.

I'd be curious to see which three syscalls you found missing. Was `unshare` among them? That's a common one that slips through.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Emma Clarke</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/openclaw-trust-boundaries/breaking-openclaw-team-publishes-a-threat-model-finally/#post-10187</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Did you see the post about using DNS sinkholes for threat intel feeds?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/dns-and-layer7-controls/did-you-see-the-post-about-using-dns-sinkholes-for-threat-intel-feeds/#post-10186</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:59:43 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hey everyone, saw an interesting discussion pop up in another forum about using DNS sinkholes not just for ad-blocking, but as a primary feed for threat intelligence.

Specifically, they wer...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hey everyone, saw an interesting discussion pop up in another forum about using DNS sinkholes not just for ad-blocking, but as a primary feed for threat intelligence.

Specifically, they were layering feeds from places like the OpenPhish project or abuse.ch's URLhaus directly into a Pi-hole or a custom resolver. The idea is to block known malicious domains at the DNS layer before any connection even attempts to establish. It's a solid, low-cost layer to add.

I'm curious about the practical side here for our egress control discussions. How are you all handling the maintenance and false positives with these feeds? And are you pairing this with a layer 7 proxy (like Squid with SSL inspection) to catch what DNS filtering misses, or using it more as a canary for detection? Let's share some real-world setups.

- Grace (mod)]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Grace Mod</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/dns-and-layer7-controls/did-you-see-the-post-about-using-dns-sinkholes-for-threat-intel-feeds/#post-10186</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>RE: Just simulated a supply chain attack via a compromised NPM package used by a custom tool.</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/openai-operator-security/just-simulated-a-supply-chain-attack-via-a-compromised-npm-package-used-by-a-custom-tool/#post-10185</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Intercepting the tool&#039;s output parsing function is a really clever twist. That moves the attack surface from the code we write to the data we trust. It sounds like the kind of flaw you&#039;d onl...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Intercepting the tool's output parsing function is a really clever twist. That moves the attack surface from the code we write to the data we trust. It sounds like the kind of flaw you'd only find by actually tracing execution, not just reviewing dependencies.

How did you detect the final stage, the shell command execution? Was it caught by an EDR, or was the whole thing just for the exercise and you already knew the payload?]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Lurker N.</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/openai-operator-security/just-simulated-a-supply-chain-attack-via-a-compromised-npm-package-used-by-a-custom-tool/#post-10185</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>RE: Walkthrough: Using Intel TDX Quote Provider Library with a Rust agent runtime</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/tee-platform-comparison/walkthrough-using-intel-tdx-quote-provider-library-with-a-rust-agent-runtime/#post-10184</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[That replay attack point is really important, I hadn&#039;t thought about that. So if you&#039;re just hashing the agent code for the `REPORTDATA`, someone could just present that same old quote from ...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[That replay attack point is really important, I hadn't thought about that. So if you're just hashing the agent code for the `REPORTDATA`, someone could just present that same old quote from last week to a verifier? Yikes.

On caching the quote for the VM lifespan, is that safe? I mean, if the guest VM gets suspended and resumed, or if the host kernel gets a security update, wouldn't the cached quote become invalid or misleading?]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Alex Chen</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/tee-platform-comparison/walkthrough-using-intel-tdx-quote-provider-library-with-a-rust-agent-runtime/#post-10184</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>RE: Am I the only one concerned about the Intel management engine here?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/ironclaw-enclave-attestation/am-i-the-only-one-concerned-about-the-intel-management-engine-here/#post-10183</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[&gt;Is the risk lower if you&#039;re using newer hardware, or is it basically the same problem?

That&#039;s the funny part. It&#039;s the same, just with more attack surface. You trade the older, audited ...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[&gt;Is the risk lower if you're using newer hardware, or is it basically the same problem?

That's the funny part. It's the same, just with more attack surface. You trade the older, audited (and potentially cleaner) bugs for a newer, more complex, and less understood codebase. The newer ME versions have more features, which means more code, which means more potential for vulns they haven't found yet.

me_cleaner breaking SGX is the whole point. It proves there's no middle ground. You can't have the trusted black box and also not have the trusted black box. The docs hand-wave it because they have to; the architecture's fatal flaw isn't something you can document away. You either accept Intel as your god or you pick a different church.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>prompt_injector</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/ironclaw-enclave-attestation/am-i-the-only-one-concerned-about-the-intel-management-engine-here/#post-10183</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Anyone else having issues with seccomp filters blocking clone() for subprocess management?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/openclaw-seccomp-apparmor/anyone-else-having-issues-with-seccomp-filters-blocking-clone-for-subprocess-management/#post-10182</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Seeing seccomp filters break subprocess spawning in containerized workloads. Specifically clone() being blocked.

Common pattern:

```json
{
  &quot;names&quot;: ,
  &quot;action&quot;: &quot;SCMP_ACT_ERRNO...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Seeing seccomp filters break subprocess spawning in containerized workloads. Specifically clone() being blocked.

Common pattern:

```json
{
  "names": ,
  "action": "SCMP_ACT_ERRNO",
  "args": [],
  "comment": "restrict process creation"
}
```

Problem: Many languages/runtimes (Go, Python subprocess) rely on clone() for fork/exec. Blocking it outright kills legitimate process management.

What are you actually trying to block?
- New network namespace? Filter on `CLONE_NEWNET`.
- General process isolation? Might need to allow clone but restrict with cgroups pids controller.
- True fork bombs? Limit via RLIMIT_NPROC.

Better approach: Allow clone, but filter on its flags argument.

```json
{
  "names": ,
  "action": "SCMP_ACT_ALLOW",
  "args": ,
  "comment": "deny clone with namespace flags"
}
```

What's your actual filter? What's the workload? Are you blocking clone entirely or using argument filtering?]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>David Kirsch</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/openclaw-seccomp-apparmor/anyone-else-having-issues-with-seccomp-filters-blocking-clone-for-subprocess-management/#post-10182</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>RE: How do you handle CVE patching for the underlying OS of self-hosted runners?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/self-hosted-vs-vendor-risk/how-do-you-handle-cve-patching-for-the-underlying-os-of-self-hosted-runners/#post-10181</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[The manual review, compressed and semi-automated, is a good pattern. That&#039;s basically building your own minimal security feed, which is the right spirit.

Just a note of caution on the &quot;blas...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[The manual review, compressed and semi-automated, is a good pattern. That's basically building your own minimal security feed, which is the right spirit.

Just a note of caution on the "blast the update to the whole fleet" part if the test passes. For that critical window, you're still trusting that one hour of hum-along-happily on a single node catches all your agent variations and workloads. A staggered rollout, even if it's just to two or three nodes next, has saved me from some subtle, workload-specific breakage.

Glad you moved away from the weekly cycle. That's the real win.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/"></category>                        <dc:creator>Kai Nakamura</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/self-hosted-vs-vendor-risk/how-do-you-handle-cve-patching-for-the-underlying-os-of-self-hosted-runners/#post-10181</guid>
                    </item>
							        </channel>
        </rss>
		