Isn't OpenClaw itself a privilege escalation?
OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
191–200 of 306 posts
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#192The Ludditism in this thread, and the linked thread, is shocking.
Is it Ludditism to not want to get PWNed spending $3k a month?
Setting it up that way is a choice a user would have to make. Just set it up on an oauth or budgeted api and not be an idiot. Setup additional guardrails in OC if you think are necessary.
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#193[dead]
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#194OpenClaw creator here. This was a privilege-escalation bug, but not "any random Telegram/Discord message can instantly own every OpenClaw instance." The root issue was an incomplete fix. The earlier advisory hardened the gateway RPC path for device approvals by passing the caller's scopes into the core approval check. But the `/pair approve` plugin command path still called the same approval function without `callerS…
[flagged]
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#195OpenClaw creator here. This was a privilege-escalation bug, but not "any random Telegram/Discord message can instantly own every OpenClaw instance." The root issue was an incomplete fix. The earlier advisory hardened the gateway RPC path for device approvals by passing the caller's scopes into the core approval check. But the `/pair approve` plugin command path still called the same approval function without `callerS…
[flagged]
I point to the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#196[flagged]
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#197Honest question: What do people actually USE OpenClaw for? The most common usage seems to be "it reads your emails!", that's the exact opposite of "exciting"...
Agent based chron jobs mostly that work with other agents. It’s really nice if you want to tell your computer to do something repeatedly or in confluence with many other agents in a very simple way. Like check my email for messages from Nadia and send me a notification and turn on all the lights in my driveway when she gets there without having to actually get into the nuts and bolts of implementing it. It’s actually…
I think this is close to the head of the nail. It kinda unlocks handling novelish asks that previous siri/alexa just couldnt handle. As long as a thing has well documented api spec then it instantly is usable. This makes the clawbot flow extraordinarily more useful.
I think devs are too focused on the technical what did u build with it.
For example. My brother runs a small recruiting agency. Super nontechnical. Out of nowhere he asks me about openclaw. Then with no help, he sets it up and uses it. Still no help, he has all kinds of nonsense hooked up and running blowing through tokens. He is blown away by it and wants to get it for all of his employees. He thinks about it in terms of cost per min running and not in tokens.
This is the sticky gooey value to whatever openclaw is doing.
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#198OpenClaw creator here. This was a privilege-escalation bug, but not "any random Telegram/Discord message can instantly own every OpenClaw instance." The root issue was an incomplete fix. The earlier advisory hardened the gateway RPC path for device approvals by passing the caller's scopes into the core approval check. But the `/pair approve` plugin command path still called the same approval function without `callerS…
I could not stop myself from looking at this user's submission history, looking for a ShowHN about Clawdbot. No such submission exists.
I can understand why, but given that OpenClaw has taken over the world, I find the lack of a ShowHN somewhat interesting.
Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#199Re: OpenClaw privilege escalation vulnerability
#200OpenClaw creator here. This was a privilege-escalation bug, but not "any random Telegram/Discord message can instantly own every OpenClaw instance." The root issue was an incomplete fix. The earlier advisory hardened the gateway RPC path for device approvals by passing the caller's scopes into the core approval check. But the `/pair approve` plugin command path still called the same approval function without `callerS…
My reply which was not an attack was detached from this sub thread as an attack. All I did was ask a clarifying question about why Telegram and Discord were specifically called out in this reply despite not being mentioned by the OP at all. I'd still like an answer to this question.