Clarify Read Access Boundaries in Security Documentation (Related to #5237, #5474, #8396)

Open 💬 3 comments Opened Feb 21, 2026 by rpodevns
💡 Likely answer: A maintainer (github-actions[bot], contributor) responded on this thread — see the highlighted reply below.

What is the type of issue?

Documentation is confusing

What is the issue?

Clarification Request: Read Access Boundaries in Codex Security Documentation

The current Codex security documentation explicitly defines:

  • Write restrictions (workspace-limited by default)
  • Network restrictions (disabled by default)
  • Approval requirements for edits outside the workspace

However, it does not explicitly define the read access boundary.

The documentation states:

“In the Auto (default) preset, Codex can read files, make edits, and run commands in the workspace.”

It explicitly states that edits outside the workspace require approval.
It does not explicitly state whether reads outside the workspace:

  • Require approval, or
  • Are restricted at the sandbox level.

This ambiguity appears to be reflected in user reports such as:

  • #5237 – Codex reading files outside the working directory without approval
  • #5474 – Accessing files outside workspace in auto approval mode
  • #8396 – Feature request to disallow reads outside workspace

Those issues suggest that read access behavior may not be clearly defined or enforced in the same way as write access.

---

Request

Please clarify in the official security documentation:

  • Whether read access is restricted to the workspace in Auto / workspace-write modes.
  • Whether reads outside the workspace require approval.
  • Whether read boundaries are enforced at the OS sandbox level.

Clear documentation of the read boundary would eliminate ambiguity and align user expectations with actual behavior.

Where did you find it?

_No response_

View original on GitHub ↗

3 Comments

github-actions[bot] contributor · 6 months ago

Potential duplicates detected. Please review them and close your issue if it is a duplicate.

  • #11316
  • #11915

Powered by Codex Action

rpodevns · 6 months ago

This is not a request for ignore patterns. It is a request for either:

  1. OS-enforced read confinement to the active workspace, or
  2. Explicit documentation stating that read access is not restricted to the workspace.

Security documentation should clearly define the read boundary, just as it defines write and network boundaries.

rpodevns · 4 months ago

The security docs are misleading!