[TZubiri]

I'm critical of OpenClaw and even the author to some extent, but I prefer to have nuanced and compartmentalized conversations, on a thread about a specific vulnerability, it's much more productive to talk about the specific vulnerability rather than OpenClaw as a whole. Otherwise we would only have generic OpenClaw conversations and we would only be saying the same thing.

[maxbond]

The comment could have been more substantive but it isn't generic or tangential. Discussing a vulnerability ultimately means discussing the failures of process that allowed it to be shipped. Especially with these application-level logic bugs that static analyzers can't generally find, the most productive outcome (after the vulnerability is fixed) is to discuss what process changes we can make to avoid shipping the next vulnerability. I'm sure there's hardening that can be done in OpenClaw but the premise of OpenClaw is to integrate many different services - it has a really large attack surface, only so much can be done to mitigate that, so it's critical to create code review processes that catch these issues.

OpenClaw is probably entering a phase of it's life where prototype-grade YOLO processes (like what the tweet describes) aren't going to cut it anymore. That's not really a criticism, the product's success has over vaulted it's maturity, which is a fortunate problem to have.