LiteLLM isn't a sandboxing tool so it just can't perform as much risk reduction even when everything is working as intended.

And what nono adds over sandbox-exec is a uniform interface across platforms and some policy management tools. You can impose the same restrictions via the OS built-in mechanisms yourself via Seatbelt or a built-in interface like sandbox-exec. You can also combine an OS-level sandboxing tool like nono, zerobox, Anthropic's srt, Seatbelt, landrun, Bubblewrap, Fence, etc., with a VM-based one like Docker's sbx, smolvm, krunvm, microsandbox, or Shuru. So now you need two simultaneous supply chain attacks in unrelated projects to line up just right at the same time.

"Eventually you have to trust some part of your security stack" is neither particularly interesting nor evidence that there's no way to defend against supply chain attacks. Even if you only have one sandboxing tool and it's OS-level rather than VM-based, that becomes a single part of your stack that you can give special attention to in evaluating updates in a way that LiteLLM can't be.

There's also just the empirical fact that at this point, trusting LiteLLM's maintainers to lock down their release pipelines looks foolhardy. This is the second supply chain attack they've had in 7 months. It's absolutely wiser to choose a sandboxing tool you like, audit it to examine its release pipelines, code signing requirements, attestation strategy, and whatever else, then put LiteLLM inside that tool's sandbox than to just thow your hands up and say "I gotta trust something, so it might as well be LiteLLM!". Maybe nono ain't it either, idk. I'm still experimenting to figure out how I want my setup to work.

But I think neither the defeatism nor the relativism in this thread are very compelling.