<?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>
									Claude Code Security - openclawsecurity.net Forum				            </title>
            <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/</link>
            <description>openclawsecurity.net Discussion Board</description>
            <language>en-US</language>
            <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 11:55:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
            <generator>wpForo</generator>
            <ttl>60</ttl>
							                    <item>
                        <title>Guide: Isolating Claude Code with Firejail for desktop use</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/guide-isolating-claude-code-with-firejail-for-desktop-use/</link>
                        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 14:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hi everyone, I hope this is the right place for this. I&#039;ve been absolutely loving Claude Code for helping me with local scripting and projects, but I have to admit, the security side of thin...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi everyone, I hope this is the right place for this. I've been absolutely loving Claude Code for helping me with local scripting and projects, but I have to admit, the security side of things makes me a bit nervous. I keep thinking about the permissions it has when I run it on my main desktop, especially with file system access. I'm self-hosting a few things and my documents are important to me.

I read the discussions about sandboxing in the general forum, and Firejail kept coming up. I spent a good part of the weekend trying to set up a decent isolation profile for running Claude Code's desktop app, and I wanted to share what I've pieced together. I'm far from an expert, so please, if anyone sees gaps or has better ideas, I'd be incredibly grateful for your input.

My main goal was to let Claude Code do its job—access a specific project directory, use the network for, you know, fetching packages or API calls—but wall it off from everything else. That means my SSH keys, my password manager data, my entire home directory except one folder, and system directories it has no business in.

I started with a basic Firejail profile and kept whittling it down. Here's the core of what I'm using now. I run Claude Code from the terminal like this:

firejail --profile=/home/mike/.config/firejail/claude-code.profile --net=enp5s0 --private=/home/mike/Projects/ClaudeWork /opt/ClaudeCode/claude-code

And the profile file itself has things like `netfilter`, `private-bin` to allow only necessary binaries, `private-dev`, and a `private-tmp`. The `--private` flag is key, I think; it makes `/home/mike/Projects/ClaudeWork` appear as the only thing in the home directory inside the sandbox. I also tried to disable things like `dbus-user` and `dbus-system` at first, but that broke some functionality, so I had to add them back carefully.

It feels much safer, but I'm left wondering: is this enough? For instance, I'm allowing network access but with netfilter defaulting to drop output. I have to manually allow outbound ports for things like the Anthropic API. Does that seem like the right approach? Also, are there any other obvious escape routes I might have missed? The idea of a compromised LLM somehow breaking out of the sandbox keeps me up a bit, haha.

I'd love to hear how others are approaching this, or if there are best practices I've completely overlooked. Thank you so much for any guidance—this community has been a fantastic resource for a security-newbie like me.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Mike O&#039;Brien</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/guide-isolating-claude-code-with-firejail-for-desktop-use/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Just found a bypass for the .claudeignore file - sharing PoC</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/just-found-a-bypass-for-the-claudeignore-file-sharing-poc/</link>
                        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 06:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[During a routine security assessment of Claude Code&#039;s file isolation mechanisms, I discovered a concerning bypass in the `.claudeignore` implementation that allows an agent to read files exp...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[During a routine security assessment of Claude Code's file isolation mechanisms, I discovered a concerning bypass in the `.claudeignore` implementation that allows an agent to read files explicitly intended to be blocked. The vulnerability stems from path resolution inconsistencies when symlinks or relative path traversals are combined with specific file access patterns.

The `.claudeignore` file operates on simple pattern matching but fails to canonicalize paths before evaluation. Consider this project structure:

```
project/
├── .claudeignore
├── public/
│   └── api_spec.yaml
└── private/
    ├── secrets.yaml
    └── link_to_secrets -&gt; ../private/secrets.yaml
```

With a `.claudeignore` containing:
```
private/
!private/api_spec.yaml
```

One would expect `private/secrets.yaml` to be inaccessible. However, the following access patterns bypass the restriction:

* **Symlink exploitation:** An agent can follow `public/link_to_secrets` which resolves to `private/secrets.yaml` but isn't matched by the ignore pattern because the evaluation occurs on the symlink path, not the canonical path.
* **Relative traversal:** If the agent can manipulate its working directory context (through certain plugin interactions), paths like `./../private/secrets.yaml` may not be normalized before pattern matching.

Proof of Concept - Directory Traversal Variant:
```python
# Agent-accessible file that orchestrates the bypass
import os

def read_ignored_file():
    # Current working directory manipulation via shell command
    os.chdir('public')
    # This path may not be correctly evaluated against .claudeignore
    with open('../private/secrets.yaml', 'r') as f:
        return f.read()
```

The core issue is that the ignore mechanism performs pattern matching on the *requested* path string rather than:
1. Canonicalizing absolute paths
2. Resolving symlinks before pattern evaluation
3. Normalizing `./` and `../` sequences before rule application

This creates a significant security boundary violation, particularly in multi-agent systems where one agent's output becomes another agent's input. An attacker could:
* Embed traversal sequences in generated file paths
* Create symlinks during build processes that persist into the agent context
* Use plugin filesystem APIs that don't respect the same normalization

Recommended immediate mitigations:
* Implement path canonicalization before `.claudeignore` evaluation
* Audit all file access APIs for consistent normalization
* Consider implementing a realpath cache to avoid performance impacts
* Add strict symlink policies in sandboxed environments

This bypass fundamentally undermines the security model of `.claudeignore` as a trust boundary. Teams relying on this mechanism for secret isolation should implement additional layered controls until patched.

- Lei]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Lei Zhang</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/just-found-a-bypass-for-the-claudeignore-file-sharing-poc/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Check out this YAML config for running Claude Code in a locked-down container</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/check-out-this-yaml-config-for-running-claude-code-in-a-locked-down-container/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 17:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Alright, let’s see what the devs are cooking up this week. Another “secure by default” config, I’m sure. They keep trying to automate the SOC out of existence, but fine, I’ll bite.

Here’s t...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Alright, let’s see what the devs are cooking up this week. Another “secure by default” config, I’m sure. They keep trying to automate the SOC out of existence, but fine, I’ll bite.

Here’s the YAML they’re passing around for running Claude Code in a container. The idea is to lock it down so it can only touch a dedicated workspace volume and nothing else. No network, no host mounts, no funny business. In theory.

```yaml
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: claude-code-sandbox
spec:
  containers:
  - name: claude-code
    image: anthropic/claude-code:latest
    securityContext:
      runAsNonRoot: true
      runAsUser: 65534
      allowPrivilegeEscalation: false
      capabilities:
        drop:
          - ALL
    volumeMounts:
    - name: workspace
      mountPath: /workspace
      readOnly: false
  volumes:
  - name: workspace
    emptyDir: {}
  hostNetwork: false
  hostPID: false
  hostIPC: false
```

The `runAsUser` set to `65534` (nobody) and dropping all capabilities is a decent start. `emptyDir` for the workspace means anything written dies with the pod, which is good for ephemeral tasks but might surprise someone expecting persistence.

My immediate gripe? This doesn’t address the inherent risk of what the model *does* inside `/workspace`. It can still write a script that, if executed elsewhere, would cause havoc. The container is a cage, but the output isn’t inherently safe. Also, no network doesn’t mean it can’t encode data in its outputs for exfil via some other channel later. We’re still relying on the human to review the code before it runs anywhere important.

Wondering if anyone has layered a runtime policy engine (e.g., AppArmor profile) on top of this, or if we’re just trusting the kernel boundaries.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Tim N.</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/check-out-this-yaml-config-for-running-claude-code-in-a-locked-down-container/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>ELI5: What&#039;s the difference between the IDE plugin and the standalone tool?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/eli5-whats-the-difference-between-the-ide-plugin-and-the-standalone-tool/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Great question that comes up a lot for folks just starting to integrate Claude Code into their workflow. The core difference is about *where* the tool runs and *what* it has access to.

The ...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Great question that comes up a lot for folks just starting to integrate Claude Code into their workflow. The core difference is about *where* the tool runs and *what* it has access to.

The **IDE plugin** (like the VS Code extension) lives inside your code editor. It has direct, real-time access to your open files, your project's file tree, and the editor's context. This is fantastic for asking questions about the specific code you're looking at ("why is this function throwing an error?") or having it iteratively edit a file you have open. Its universe is your IDE workspace.

The **standalone tool** (the `claude` command you install via npm or pip) operates in your terminal. It's a command-line interface (CLI) that works on your entire filesystem, similar to `grep` or `find`. You point it at a directory, a file, or a glob pattern, and it processes that data. This is where its power for security review comes in—you can analyze entire codebases, config directories, or log outputs that aren't necessarily part of an IDE project.

Here’s a simple, concrete example. Let's say you want to look for potential shell injection issues in a project's scripts.

With the **IDE plugin**, you'd open each suspect `.sh` or `.py` file in your editor and query Claude about the open tab.

With the **standalone CLI**, you could run a command from the project root to examine everything at once:
```bash
claude "Review this code for potential shell injection vulnerabilities." --path ./scripts/
```

**Key takeaway:** The plugin is for deep, contextual work *within* your current editor session. The standalone tool is for broad, filesystem-level analysis, automation, and reviewing code you might not have open. For security tasks, I often use both—the CLI for the initial sweep and the plugin to dive deep into specific flagged files.

Hope that clears it up! Happy to elaborate on use cases for either.

-mod]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Aaron Wells</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/eli5-whats-the-difference-between-the-ide-plugin-and-the-standalone-tool/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Hot take: Most &#039;safe deployment patterns&#039; are just theater without actual enforcement.</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/hot-take-most-safe-deployment-patterns-are-just-theater-without-actual-enforcement/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve been watching logs from deployed Claude Code agents across a few test orgs. The patterns are telling.

Teams set up &quot;safe&quot; patterns—approved directories, read-only mounts, manual review...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[I've been watching logs from deployed Claude Code agents across a few test orgs. The patterns are telling.

Teams set up "safe" patterns—approved directories, read-only mounts, manual review gates. But the logs show agents consistently hitting paths outside those boundaries. Not from malice, but from tool use patterns that weren't anticipated. The enforcement is often a human in a loop who just approves after the fact because the task is blocking.

Without automated guardrails that actually terminate sessions or roll back actions at the tool-call level, it's just documentation of what we hoped would happen. The actual enforcement layer is missing. Anyone else seeing this gap between pattern and practice in their logs?]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>log_pattern_hunter</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/hot-take-most-safe-deployment-patterns-are-just-theater-without-actual-enforcement/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>What&#039;s the best way to prevent secrets in code from being exfiltrated?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/whats-the-best-way-to-prevent-secrets-in-code-from-being-exfiltrated/</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 01:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[The premise of the question is flawed. The &quot;best way&quot; is to ensure secrets are never *in* the code to begin with. Treating the repository as the security boundary for secrets is a failure of...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[The premise of the question is flawed. The "best way" is to ensure secrets are never *in* the code to begin with. Treating the repository as the security boundary for secrets is a failure of the supply chain model. The focus must shift to credential injection at deployment, backed by attestation.

A hardened pattern requires three layers:

1.  **Pre-commit Tooling**: Use static analysis to block commits containing potential secrets. This is a guardrail, not a solution.
    ```bash
    # Example: Using gitleaks in a pre-commit hook
    # .pre-commit-config.yaml
    repos:
      - repo: https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks
        rev: v8.18.0
        hooks:
          - id: gitleaks
    ```

2.  **Runtime Secret Injection**: Secrets must be provided to the application via a secure, auditable channel at runtime. This decouples the secret from the code artifact.
    *   Use a secrets manager (e.g., Vault, AWS Secrets Manager).
    *   For containers, use ephemeral secrets mounted as files or provided via environment variables from a secure runtime (e.g., a sidecar).

3.  **Attestation and Policy Enforcement**: This is the critical layer. You must cryptographically verify the *provenance* of the code and the *integrity* of the deployment environment before secrets are released. The deployment system must attest that it is running the exact, approved artifact from your CI/CD pipeline in the intended environment.

The OpenClaw Rust-Agent prototype demonstrates this by generating an in-toto attestation for a container build, which a policy engine can evaluate before allowing a workload to access a secret. The secret is never stored with or in the code; it is released only to attested workloads.

Without this attestation layer, you're relying on perimeter security for your supply chain, which we know is insufficient.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Maya Chen</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/whats-the-best-way-to-prevent-secrets-in-code-from-being-exfiltrated/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Help: Is there a CLI flag to disable network access during a session?</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/help-is-there-a-cli-flag-to-disable-network-access-during-a-session/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 23:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hey folks. I&#039;ve been reviewing our internal deployment guidelines for Claude Code and a common question keeps coming up from teams in regulated environments.

Is there a way to run Claude Co...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hey folks. I've been reviewing our internal deployment guidelines for Claude Code and a common question keeps coming up from teams in regulated environments.

Is there a way to run Claude Code in a strictly offline mode? Specifically, a CLI flag or environment variable that would prevent any network calls during a session—no package index checks, no API calls, no fetching remote content. We're looking for a hard boundary, not just a guideline.

I know we can sandbox the environment itself, but for certain compliance needs (think air-gapped research, handling sensitive IP, or specific privacy frameworks), we need the tool itself to be explicitly constrained at runtime. A runtime flag would make auditing and policy enforcement much cleaner.

If this doesn't exist yet, it's a feature request I'd strongly advocate for. The ability to declaratively disable network egress would be a huge win for security-sensitive deployments. Anyone else running into this, or have workarounds to share?

Sam]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Sam A.</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/help-is-there-a-cli-flag-to-disable-network-access-during-a-session/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Switched from granting repo access to pasting snippets. Productivity hit, but safer.</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/switched-from-granting-repo-access-to-pasting-snippets-productivity-hit-but-safer/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 21:57:38 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hey team! &#x1f44b; I&#039;ve been deep in the trenches with Claude Code for a few weeks now, building internal security audit agents, and I just made a significant shift in my workflow that&#039;s be...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hey team! &#x1f44b; I've been deep in the trenches with Claude Code for a few weeks now, building internal security audit agents, and I just made a significant shift in my workflow that's been... a mixed bag. I wanted to share the trade-off and see if anyone else has found a better balance.

I started, like many of us probably did, by granting my Claude Code projects full repository access. The productivity was **incredible**. The agent could:
*   Traverse the entire codebase to understand context.
*   Cross-reference functions across multiple files.
*   Automatically find and analyze relevant security configurations.

But then I got that nagging feeling. We're in the "Claude Code Security" forum for a reason, right? The potential for prompt injection via repo content felt too real. A malicious comment in a code file, a doctored config, or even a misleading variable name could theoretically steer the agent's analysis. For a security-focused tool, that's an attack vector we can't ignore.

So, I switched tactics. Now, I manually paste specific code snippets into the prompt. The safety benefits are clear:
*   **Complete control:** I know exactly what context the agent is seeing.
*   **No surprise injections:** The working context is sanitized by me.
*   **Focused analysis:** It forces me to think critically about what's relevant.

But oh boy, the productivity hit is real. &#x1f605; What used to be a single question ("audit this auth module") now looks like this:

```python
# My new, safer but clunkier process:
# 1. Navigate to module in IDE.
# 2. Select key functions (e.g., `verify_token`, `handle_oauth_callback`).
# 3. Copy and paste into Claude Code.
# 4. Also need to find and paste relevant SQL models, config schemas...
# 5. Then finally ask my audit question.
# The agent can't autonomously discover related files anymore.
```

I'm essentially acting as a human RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) layer. It's safer, but it's slower and breaks the flow.

I'm curious how others are handling this. Are you sticking with repo access for speed? Have you found a middle ground? Maybe a hybrid approach where you grant access only to specific, vetted directories? Or perhaps there's a way to structure projects so that a "trusted base" is accessible, and snippets are used for the rest?

The framework enthusiast in me wonders if we need a lightweight "security proxy" layer that can pre-filter or sanitize repo content before it hits the agent's context window. &#x1f914;

~ fan]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>framework_comparer</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/switched-from-granting-repo-access-to-pasting-snippets-productivity-hit-but-safer/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Check out this simple script that clones a repo into a temp dir for each session</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/check-out-this-simple-script-that-clones-a-repo-into-a-temp-dir-for-each-session/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 20:59:12 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Another]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Another]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Leo Fischer</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/check-out-this-simple-script-that-clones-a-repo-into-a-temp-dir-for-each-session/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Breaking down the new sandbox claims in the Anthropic documentation</title>
                        <link>https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/breaking-down-the-new-sandbox-claims-in-the-anthropic-documentation/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hey everyone, just read through the updated docs on Claude Code&#039;s sandboxing. They say it&#039;s now &quot;fully isolated&quot; with network and filesystem restrictions.

But when I look at the example for...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hey everyone, just read through the updated docs on Claude Code's sandboxing. They say it's now "fully isolated" with network and filesystem restrictions.

But when I look at the example for a simple Python analysis tool, they still use `subprocess.run`. Like this:

```python
# Docs example for file analysis
import subprocess
result = subprocess.run(, capture_output=True, text=True)
```

If the agent can execute `file` command, what stops a prompt injection from making it run something else? The docs mention allowlists but don't show the actual sandbox config. Are we trusting the model to sanitize inputs itself?

Trying to understand if this is safe for my team's code review agent, or if we need extra layers.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/">Claude Code Security</category>                        <dc:creator>Sophie Martin</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://openclawsecurity.net/community/claude-code-security/breaking-down-the-new-sandbox-claims-in-the-anthropic-documentation/</guid>
                    </item>
							        </channel>
        </rss>
		