Browser Use policy blocks 1688.com and AliExpress entirely, preventing authorized business workflows
I am using Codex Desktop on Windows with Chrome/browser control.
I need Codex to assist with business workflows on Chinese e-commerce and sourcing websites such as 1688.com and AliExpress. The workflows require reading visible pages, using an already logged-in Chrome session, clicking through account/verification pages, and helping the user navigate forms.
However, Browser Use blocks these domains entirely before the pages can even load.
Tested URLs:
For 1688 URLs, Codex returns:
Browser Use rejected this action due to browser security policy.
Reason: Browser use is not permitted on https://www.1688.com.
The agent must not attempt to achieve the same outcome via workaround, indirect execution, raw CDP or browser commands, alternate browser surfaces, or policy circumvention.
Proceed only with a materially safer alternative that does not require this blocked browser action; if none exists, stop and request user input.
For AliExpress, Codex returns the same policy error with:
Reason: Browser use is not permitted on https://www.aliexpress.com.
Expected behavior:
When the user explicitly authorizes Codex to use their logged-in Chrome session, Codex should be able to read and operate these pages, at least in a safe, user-supervised way.
Actual behavior:
Browser Use blocks access to these sites entirely. The page remains about:blank and Codex cannot read or interact with the site at all.
Impact:
This prevents Codex from assisting with legitimate business workflows such as sourcing, supplier communication, 1688 account workflows, AliExpress order workflows, and related account/verification navigation. The only workaround is manual screenshot sharing, which is slow and unreliable.
Question:
Is this an intentional domain block, a temporary security policy limitation, or a bug? Is there any recommended safe configuration or supervised workflow that would allow Codex to assist on these domains?
This issue has 3 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗