Zed now supports sandboxing within the agent panel.
Sandboxing restricts what the agent is able to do when using the terminal and fetch tools. These restrictions are enforced by the operating system and do not rely on an agent following instructions.
Sandboxing is enabled by default for all users, starting on the 1.14 release.
Some users prefer to tightly control what the agent is allowed to do, while others opt for "YOLO mode" and give agents freedom to do anything and everything on their computer.
There are advantages and downsides to both approaches. Manually approving/denying each action the agent takes can get tedious, and sacrifices some of the automation which agents provide. On the other hand, an agent in YOLO mode can wreak havoc on your machine (or any machines you can reach over the network).
The tension comes from the fact that agents cannot be trusted to determine whether an action is something the user would want. You may be disappointed to learn that we are not announcing that we have solved this famously hard problem. Until we do, sandboxing is the best way to constrain an agent's behavior.
In Zed, the agent panel's terminal and fetch tools1 are now sandboxed by default. The default sandbox rules forbid an agent from writing outside the project directories, writing to .git, or making network requests.
For many interactions, this is more than enough. But when it's not, agents can request permission to temporarily escalate their privileges. The user will see:
- which privileges the agent is asking for
- a reason why they're asking for it
Note: The agent may not request write access to .git, since this allows an agent to write hooks that run outside the sandbox.
Sandboxes are implemented using operating system APIs:
- macOS uses Seatbelt
- Linux uses namespaces (through Bubblewrap)
- Windows uses WSL
- Non-WSL shells on Windows do not support sandboxing
Linux users will need to make sure they have a working bwrap binary without the setuid bit set in their $PATH. WSL users will need to make sure this is true inside their WSL environment.
You can, and a lot of the time, that's sufficient. Modern LLMs are pretty good at following instructions, but it's not a guarantee. Instructions also do very little to protect against prompt injection attacks.
Perhaps you work on an open source project, and you're reviewing a contributor's PR. You open an agent and ask "review this PR". Little do you know, however, that the PR contains a modified AGENTS.md that instructs your agent to upload $MY_SECRET_API_KEY to a server controlled by the attacker.
This has already happened, and it's only going to get more common.
The benefit of sandboxes is that they simply do not allow access to certain resources2.
Zed has supported fine-grained rules for the terminal tool for a while. You can, for example, disallow any command that matches git .*. Why bother with sandboxing when we could ship a set of rules that achieves the same restrictions?
The answer is that it's simply not possible. A rule that bans git .* does very little to prevent an agent that really wants to modify your .git folder. It can:
bash -c 'git ...'EVIL_CMD="git ..." bash -c $EVIL_CMDecho 'git @$' > evil_git; chmod +x evil_git; evil_git ...python ...- the list goes on...
Fine-grained rules work well as a guideline when dealing with a well-aligned agent. They fall over instantly in the presence of an even vaguely sophisticated attacker.
Sandboxes are similar to other software features in many respects, but differ in a couple of key ways:
- A single bug may compromise a user's security.
- There must be no bugs even in the presence of adversaries.
This means that you can't just say "Oh, this won't happen in practice". Instead, you need to ask:
Could an attacker make this happen?
A good example of this is what I've been calling the "symlink swap" attack. Note that Zed's sandbox does catch this attack and will fail-closed, meaning that the untrusted command will not be run.
Some background: on Linux, Zed's sandbox controls filesystem access using Bubblewrap. This is a program called bwrap which allows running a command within a "namespace"3. The simplest bwrap invocation might be:
bwrap --ro-bind / / -- echo hello
This command:
- creates a new namespace
- mounts the real
/ into the namespace at /, read-only
- runs
echo hello within the namespace
Note that, without --ro-bind / /, this command would fail, since it wouldn't be able to find echo.
When Zed creates a sandbox with access to specific directories, it constructs a set of --bind or --ro-bind arguments to pass to bwrap.
The flow for the symlink swap attack goes like this:
- A malicious agent is given write access to
/foo.
- It then spawns two subagents which run in parallel:
- Subagent 1 repeatedly tries to write the attacker's public key to
/foo/bar/.ssh/authorized_keys
- Critically, it also requests write access to
/foo/bar. A user is likely to grant this, since it already has /foo, so it seems safe.
- Subagent 2 replaces
/foo/bar with a symlink to /home/alice
- Note that this can succeed even if the sandbox only grants read access to
/home/alice
- Initially, the writes to
/foo/bar/.ssh/authorized_keys fail, since there's no such file.
- However, after the second subagent's symlink swap succeeds, the path
/foo/bar/.ssh/authorized_keys points to /home/alice/.ssh/authorized_keys.
- But this is still blocked by the sandbox, since write access to
/home/alice was never granted.
So far, so good. But there's a catch! There's a small timing window between:
- the time when the user is shown the prompt and clicks "allow"
- the time when the path is given to
bwrap
If the symlink swap happens in that window, then:
- the user sees
/foo/bar and approves
/foo/bar becomes a symlink to /home/alice- Zed passes
--bind /foo/bar /foo/bar to bwrap
- Within the sandbox,
/foo/bar is mounted to the real /home/alice, with write access.
At this point, the sandboxed program can write to /foo/bar/.ssh/authorized_keys, which resolves to /home/alice/.ssh/authorized_keys. The attacker's public key is now trusted by the machine!
This is a classic time-of-check-time-of-use (TOCTOU) bug. Left unaddressed, it would allow a malicious agent to gain write access to any directory it has read access to.
In practice, the timing window is incredibly small - it's essentially just the time it takes to spawn a subprocess - usually a few hundred microseconds. But that's not good enough. Attackers can repeatedly try4, and they only need to succeed once.
Sandboxes are just one layer in a defense in depth strategy. For more detail, check out our docs on this topic.
The sandbox covers the terminal and fetch tools in Zed's agent, but it does nothing to protect you when you use:
- Other tools in the Zed agent like the
edit tool.
- Agents connected over ACP
- LSP and MCP servers
- The regular built-in terminal
- External programs like
ghostty or VSCode
A malicious agent may not be able to execute pwn_my_machine.sh from within the Zed agent's terminal, but it might not need to, if it can trick you into running it outside the sandbox.
For example:
- It could add a
build.rs5 file that runs the script. Then, when you run cargo run in the built-in terminal, it executes that build.rs outside the sandbox.
- If given access to write to
/home/alice, it could edit your .bashrc to run the script outside the sandbox.
- It could edit your project using regular editing tools to contain a Rust crate with a malicious procedural macro6 that runs the script.
rust-analyzer will then build and run this macro outside the sandbox.
- If your project contains a Git submodule, it could install a hook that runs the script when you commit. If you run
git commit from a regular terminal app, then the hook would run outside the sandbox.
The list is almost endless. Closing everything requires more than what sandboxing alone can provide.
Sandboxing is now enabled by default in Zed's agent panel. The terminal and fetch tools run with restrictions enforced by the operating system: agents can't write outside your project directories, can't touch .git, and can't reach the network unless you grant access. When an agent needs more, it has to ask, with a reason you can evaluate. As one layer in a security strategy, it meaningfully limits what an agent can do to your machine.
The create_directory tool, while not strictly "sandboxed", participates in the sandboxing permissions flow. Note that, even when permission has not been granted, the create_directory tool may temporarily create the requested directory, but will clean it up if permission is not granted. ↩
Assuming no bugs in the sandbox implementation. ↩
Namespaces are the core primitive provided by the Linux kernel that underpin sandboxes. They allow creating a context in which a user can run a program where it gets a simulated OS environment (i.e. it has a different view of the filesystem, devices, users, etc.). ↩
There are also techniques that can widen this gap, which makes it even easier to exploit. ↩
A build.rs is a special file in a Rust project that runs code before compiling your programor library. ↩
A procedural macro is another Rust feature that allows writing a program that manipulates Rust source code (for example, #[derive(Serialize)] is a procedural macro). While they are typically pure functions, they are not required to be, and can even do some pretty cursed things like forking the compiler! ↩
Related Posts
Check out similar blogs from the Zed team.
Looking for a better editor?
You can try Zed today on macOS, Windows, or Linux. Download now!
We are hiring!
If you're passionate about the topics we cover on our blog, please consider joining our team to help us ship the future of software development.
Instagram Engineering
Shopify Engineering