Greywall vs Push Security

Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings

Analysis reviewed Live tool data as of 2026-09-01
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

At a glance

DimensionGreywallPush Security
PricingFree (open source available)Freemium (paid tiers undisclosed)
Primary Use CaseSandbox for AI coding agents to prevent data leaksEnterprise browser security against AiTM/ClickFix/OAuth attacks
DeploymentLocal kernel-enforced sandbox (macOS/Linux CLI)Cloud-based browser extension (multi-browser)
Key FeatureLive activity feed with watch/ask/deny modesAgentic threat hunting with browser telemetry
Target UserDevelopers using AI coding agentsSecurity & identity teams
Latest NewsNo recent news2026-06-26: Experienced poisoned tenant attack; highlighted browser security gap

Choose Push Security if you need enterprise-grade browser security against sophisticated attacks like AiTM phishing and OAuth abuse, especially in AI tool governance. Choose Greywall if you're a developer wanting lightweight, kernel-level sandboxing for AI coding agents to prevent accidental data leaks. They solve different problems: Push protects users from external threats; Greywall protects secrets from internal agents.

Try GreywallTry Push Security
Greywall
Greywall

Kernel-enforced sandbox with live activity feed for AI coding agents

Visit Website
Push Security
Push Security

Browser-native security that stops AI-driven attacks and secures employee AI usage

Visit Website
Pricing
Freemium
Freemium
Plans
$0/mo
$5/user/month
Custom
Popularity
5 views
7.5k views
Skill Level
Intermediate
Advanced
API Available
Platforms
CLI
Web
Categories
🧠 Agent Memory & Runtimes🔐 Application & Code Security
🚨 Threat Detection & SOC🔒 Security & Privacy
Features
Live activity feed logs every read, write, and connection in real time
Kernel-enforced filesystem sandboxing with per-path allow/deny rules
Network isolation via TUN + SOCKS5 proxy, captures all TCP/UDP traffic
Seccomp BPF syscall filtering blocks 27+ dangerous system calls
eBPF monitoring traces syscall exits for full visibility
Landlock filesystem control enforces granular read/write permissions
Bubblewrap namespaces isolate process, network, and mount environments
Switch to ask or deny mode mid-session without restarting
Deny rules for filesystem paths, network hosts, and commands
Command blocking works inside pipes, chains, and nested shells
Learning mode auto-generates least-privilege templates via strace
Safe defaults deny SSH keys, .env files, and shell configs
One-line install via Homebrew, curl, Go install, or source
Works with any local CLI agent without agent-specific config
Behavioral phishing detection
Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing detection and blocking
ClickFix / clipboard injection blocking
Device code phishing detection and blocking
Malicious OAuth consent blocking
Session hijacking detection
Credential stuffing detection
Ghost login detection and SSO guardrails
MFA enforcement via in-browser guardrails
Shadow AI app discovery and inventory
AI prompt and data input monitoring
AI file upload monitoring and blocking
Agentic browser detection (Comet, Atlas, Dia)
Autonomous threat hunting agents
Browser extension inventory, risk scoring, and blocking
Integrations
Claude Code
Codex
Cursor
Aider
Goose
Amp
Gemini CLI
Cline
OpenCode
Copilot
Okta
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Sentinel
Datadog
Splunk Cloud
SentinelOne
Slack
Webhooks
REST API

What real users say: Greywall vs Push Security

Not marketing copy and not our opinion — a structured sweep of public discussion (reviews, forums, communities and video comments), showing what people praise and what they complain about for each tool.

Greywall

17 mentions across 2 sources · 78% positive

Hacker News, GitHub

What users praise

  • • Kernel-level sandboxing provides stronger isolation than container or VM approaches.
  • • Deny-by-default policy prevents agents from accessing sensitive files like .env and SSH keys.
  • • Live activity feed shows every read, write, and network request in real time.
  • • Supports any CLI agent without modifications, including Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor.

What frustrates them

  • • Very early-stage with only ~250 GitHub stars and 22 open issues.
  • • A user reported it could be forkbombed by a compromised package, raising reliability doubts.
  • • Limited community presence outside Hacker News and GitHub makes support uncertain.
  • • No official documentation or tutorials beyond the GitHub repo and website.

Researched Jul 3, 2026

Push Security

30 mentions across 3 sources · 43% positive — mixed

Hacker News, YouTube, Lemmy

What users praise

  • • Works as a lightweight extension across all major browsers without forcing a single proprietary browser.
  • • Detects advanced threats like AiTM phishing, ClickFix, session hijacking, and malicious OAuth flows.
  • • Autonomous hunting agents analyze browser telemetry to write and deploy detection rules at machine speed.
  • • Provides comprehensive AI usage governance: inventory, prompt monitoring, file upload blocking, and unsanctioned app control.

What frustrates them

  • • No independent community feedback or real-user reviews available to verify claims.
  • • Requires advanced security expertise to configure and interpret telemetry effectively.
  • • High-fidelity telemetry collection may trigger privacy and compliance red flags.
  • • Potential for false positives in blocking legitimate OAuth and extension actions.

Researched Aug 26, 2026

Who should pick which

  • Security operations analyst
    Pick: Push Security

    Push's browser telemetry and agentic threat hunting detect AiTM, ClickFix, and OAuth attacks that bypass EDR. Integrations with Splunk/Slack enable SOAR workflows.

  • Identity & access manager
    Pick: Push Security

    Push enforces MFA registration and password changes in-browser, detects ghost logins and shadow SaaS, reducing identity attack surface.

  • AI governance lead
    Pick: Push Security

    Push provides real-time AI tool inventory, usage controls (clipboard, file uploads, OAuth), and compliance evidence for AI regulations.

  • Developer using AI coding agents
    Pick: Greywall

    Greywall sandboxes agents like Claude Code and Codex to prevent them from reading .env files, API keys, or making unauthorized network calls, with zero config per agent.

  • Platform engineer evaluating agent security
    Pick: Greywall

    Greywall's kernel-enforced isolation with deny-by-default and learning mode offers lightweight, agent-agnostic sandboxing without VMs or containers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Greywall vs Push Security: which should you choose?

Choose Push Security if you need enterprise-grade browser security against sophisticated attacks like AiTM phishing and OAuth abuse, especially in AI tool governance. Choose Greywall if you're a developer wanting lightweight, kernel-level sandboxing for AI coding agents to prevent accidental data leaks. They solve different problems: Push protects users from external threats; Greywall protects secrets from internal agents.

Does Push Security replace an enterprise browser?

No, it works across all major browsers via extension, detecting attacks without migration.

Can Greywall block outbound network calls?

Yes, via TUN + SOCKS5 proxy with allow/deny rules, and a denial watchdog.

Does Push detect clipboard data loss to AI tools?

Yes, it has in-browser DLP for AI tools monitoring clipboard and file uploads.

Which agents does Greywall support?

Any CLI agent: Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Aider, Goose, Amp, Gemini CLI, Cline, OpenCode, Copilot, and more.

Is Push Security suitable for small businesses?

Not ideal; it targets enterprises with browser-based attack surface and AI usage.

Does Greywall require agent-specific configuration?

No; it sits transparently under any agent process without agent-specific config.

Can Push Security prevent session hijacking?

Yes, it detects and blocks session hijacking attacks using browser telemetry.

Does Greywall work on Windows?

No, only macOS and Linux are supported.

More Greywall or Push Security comparisons

Looker vs Push Security comparison

Push Security and Looker address entirely different domains — browser security vs. business intelligence — so the choice depends on your primary need. If your priority is stopping browser-based attack

Amplitude vs Push Security comparison

Buyers should not choose between Push Security and Amplitude — they serve entirely different needs. Push Security is for security teams defending against browser-based attacks and securing AI usage. A

Sentry vs Push Security comparison

If your priority is securing browser-based attacks and shadow AI usage, choose Push Security — it directly addresses AiTM phishing, AI tool data leakage, and ghost logins across all browsers. If you n

Datadog vs Push Security comparison

Choose Datadog if you need deep, unified observability across infrastructure, apps, and security for DevOps/SRE teams. Choose Push Security if your priority is stopping browser-based attacks (AiTM phi

Power BI vs Push Security comparison

Push Security and Power BI serve fundamentally different needs: Push Security is a browser security platform for stopping AI-powered attacks and controlling AI tool usage, while Power BI is a business

Tableau vs Push Security comparison

Push Security and Tableau serve fundamentally different purposes, so the choice depends entirely on your need: browser security and AI governance (Push Security) vs. data visualization and analytics (

Explore each tool further

Greywall
View Greywall reviewGreywall alternatives
Push Security
View Push Security reviewPush Security alternatives

Browse these categories

Best AI Agent Memory & Runtimes toolsBest AI Threat Detection & SOC toolsBest AI Application & Code Security toolsBest AI Security & Privacy tools
Still deciding? Get the weekly AI tools brief

One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.

Last reviewed: July 3, 2026