Grok Build AI Coding Assistant Secretly Uploaded Entire User Repositories Including Git History and Secrets to Google Cloud

Grok Build, the command-line coding tool developed by Elon Musk’s xAI, was found transmitting complete Git repositories — including full commit history and previously deleted sensitive files — to Google Cloud storage even when users issued minimal commands such as “OK”. Security researcher Cereblab discovered that the tool ignored explicit instructions not to access files and packaged entire codebases regardless of the task. The behavior contrasted sharply with competing assistants like Claude Code, Gemini, and Codex, which transmit only the minimal files required. After public disclosure, xAI enabled a server-side disable_codebase_upload flag and promised to delete all previously collected data, while also open-sourcing the tool and disabling data retention by default from July 12. Cereblab criticized the lack of secure defaults, noting that users had to manually run a /privacy command that did not actually stop the uploads. The incident raises ongoing concerns about whether xAI has truly erased the large volumes of source code, SSH keys, password-manager databases, and other secrets that were collected without explicit consent.

securitylab_nJuly 16, 2026Translated from Russian

Read at source

Grok Build, the command-line AI coding assistant created by xAI, was discovered sending complete user repositories — including full Git history and long-deleted secrets — to Google Cloud storage, often without any legitimate need to access the files.

Security researcher Cereblab identified the issue after analyzing network traffic between the Grok Build CLI and xAI servers. The tool was observed packaging entire repositories into Git archives and uploading them wholesale, even when the user explicitly instructed it to answer “OK” and forbade any file access.

Scope of the Data Exposure

Unlike competing tools such as Claude Code, Gemini, and Codex, which typically open only the specific files required for a task, Grok Build transmitted significantly larger volumes of data. In multiple tests, the assistant uploaded full project histories containing passwords, access keys, and other credentials that developers had removed from the current working tree months earlier but remained in Git history.

One user reported that Grok Build also exfiltrated the entire home directory, exposing SSH keys, password-manager databases, and additional sensitive material.

Company Response and Technical Fix

Following the public report, xAI engineers activated the server-side parameter disable_codebase_upload and set it to true for all users, immediately halting the mass uploads. The company also claimed to operate in a zero-data-retention (ZDR) mode for accounts with the setting enabled and offered the /privacy command to disable retention and delete previously synced data.

Cereblab disputed the effectiveness of these measures, stating that the /privacy command only affected session-level storage and did not stop the underlying repository uploads. The researcher emphasized that secure defaults should prohibit transmission of codebases rather than require users to opt out manually.

Further Actions and Remaining Concerns

Elon Musk publicly stated that xAI would completely delete all user data collected before the fix. On July 12, the company open-sourced Grok Build, removed usage restrictions, disabled data storage by default, and began deleting previously stored code while allowing local execution of the tool.

Although these steps address future behavior, independent verification that all previously uploaded repositories, commit histories, and secrets have been erased remains impossible. The episode highlights fundamental risks in AI coding assistants that process source code in the cloud without transparent, user-controlled data-handling policies.

Claude Code Google Cloud xAI Cereblab Gemini Codex

ShareX Facebook LinkedIn Reddit

Meridian digestThe week's most consequential security stories, distilled into one briefing.See the digest

More in AI Security

AI Security

Logical Argument Claims Full Alignment of Superintelligent AGI Is Fundamentally Impossible

A detailed analysis argues that the AI alignment problem cannot be solved for systems exceeding human cognitive capabilities. The paper presents a formal proof showing that any control mechanism created by humans will inevitably be circumvented by a more intelligent agent. It draws on foundational theorems from logic and cybernetics to support the conclusion that alignment is not an engineering challenge but a logical impossibility. Recent 2025-2026 research papers reach similar conclusions using computability theory and diagonal arguments. The work concludes that the only way to guarantee alignment is to avoid creating superintelligence altogether. All proposed restrictions are described as temporary delays rather than permanent solutions.

HabrOct 29, 2026Translated from Russian

AI Security

Claude Account Bans Linked to IP Reputation, Device Environment and Payment Channels, But No Confirmed Formula

Discussions on the Chinese forum NodeSeek have highlighted observations from a user who reported bans on more than twenty paid Claude accounts. The user identified IP address reputation, device environment traces, and payment processor history as the main factors potentially triggering blocks by Anthropic. However, the original post does not present a unified scoring system or prove specific penalties for using Linux, browser-only access, or the Fable model. High query volume is described mainly as a rate-limit issue rather than an automatic account ban trigger. Community members remain divided, with some confirming isolated observations while others label the conclusions speculative and share contradictory experiences. No universal method to avoid blocks has emerged from the discussion.

AntiMalwareOct 29, 2026Translated from Russian

AI Security

Local LLMs in AppSec: What Open Tools and Models Can Handle in Application Security

The article examines how local large language models can be integrated into application security workflows without relying on cloud subscriptions. It traces the evolution from llama.cpp in 2023 through agentic frameworks like PentAGI and Strix in 2025-2026. Teams can now run models on local hardware, connect them to code analyzers such as Semgrep, and delegate specific tasks like vulnerability path reconstruction or multi-step application testing. The piece highlights practical scenarios including static code review, dynamic testing with browser and terminal agents, and security evaluation of embedded AI assistants using tools like Garak and PyRIT. It stresses the importance of task decomposition, context management, and verification of model outputs to avoid misleading results. Hardware performance, model selection, and custom agent configurations are presented as key factors for successful adoption.

HabrOct 29, 2026Translated from Russian