Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » OpenClaw » OPE1772180865

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (OPE1772180865)

The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-5
Company Score Before Incident664 / 1000
Company Score After Incident659 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBEROPE1772180865
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORWebSocket Connection Hijacking
DATA EXPOSEDSensitive data (e.g., Slack messages,...
INCIDENT DATE24/02/2026
STATUSResolved

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of OpenClaw's Vulnerability and lateral movement inside company's environment.
  • Overview of affected data sets, including SSNs and PHI, and why they materially increase incident severity.
  • How Rankiteo’s incident engine converts technical details into a normalized incident score.
  • How this cyber incident impacts OpenClaw Rankiteo cyber scoring and cyber rating.
  • Rankiteo’s MITRE ATT&CK correlation analysis for this incident, with associated confidence level.

Full Incident Analysis Transcript

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the OpenClaw breach identified under incident ID OPE1772180865.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of OpenClaw's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/openclawai, the number of followers: 2607, the industry type: Technology, Information and Internet and the number of employees: 5 employees

After the initial compromise, the video explains how Rankiteo's incident engine converts technical details into a normalized incident score. The incident score before the incident was 664 and after the incident was 659 with a difference of -5 which is could be a good indicator of the severity and impact of the incident.

In the next step of the video, we will analyze in more details the incident and the impact it had on OpenClaw and their customers.

On 25 February 2026, OpenClaw AI Agent disclosed Vulnerability Exploitation issues under the banner "OpenClaw AI Agent WebSocket Vulnerability Exploit".

OpenClaw, an open-source AI agent, was found to have a severe security flaw in its core architecture that allowed malicious websites to hijack the agent without user interaction.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting OpenClaw AI Agent (self-hosted instances), and exposing Sensitive data (e.g., Slack messages, API keys).

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Patch released (version 2026.2.25), and began remediation that includes Fixed WebSocket gateway authentication and rate limiting.

The case underscores how Resolved, teams are taking away lessons such as The incident highlights risks in shadow AI adoption, where tools are deployed without IT oversight. It underscores the need for intent-based guardrails, audit trails, and structured oversight for autonomous AI agents, and recommending next steps like Implement intent-based guardrails for AI agents, Enforce centralized controls and audit trails and Improve visibility into self-hosted AI tools.

Finally, we try to match the incident with the MITRE ATT&CK framework to see if there is any correlation between the incident and the MITRE ATT&CK framework.

The MITRE ATT&CK framework is a knowledge base of techniques and sub-techniques that are used to describe the tactics and procedures of cyber adversaries. It is a powerful tool for understanding the threat landscape and for developing effective defense strategies.

MITRE ATT&CK® Correlation Analysis

Rankiteo's analysis has identified several MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques associated with this incident, each with varying levels of confidence based on available evidence. Under the Initial Access tactic, the analysis identified Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating malicious websites to silently hijack the agent without user interaction and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating vulnerability chain in OpenClaw’s core architecture. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating execute arbitrary commands on connected systems. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force: Password Guessing (T1110.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating brute-force the agent’s password (often guessed in seconds). Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol (T1021.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating register rogue devices, extract sensitive data. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating extract sensitive data (e.g., Slack messages, API keys). Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration via WebSocket connection hijacking. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (T1553.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating open-source AI agent deployed without IT oversight and Modify Registry (T1112) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating lack of centralized controls for autonomous AI agents. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating hijack the agent to execute arbitrary commands. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Drive-by Compromise (90%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (80%)
Execution
Command and Scripting Interpreter (80%)
Credential Access
Brute Force: Password Guessing (90%)
Lateral Movement
Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Defense Evasion
Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (60%)
Modify Registry (50%)
Impact
Resource Hijacking (70%)

Sources & References