top | item 47117989

(no title)

I don't understand step 1. OAuth client applications have to be registered in GCP, right? They have to request specific scopes for specific APIs, and there is a review process before they can be used by the public. Did none of that happen for the Open Claw client? How is it the users' fault for clicking a "Sign in with Google" button? And if there was a mistake, why not ban the whole client?

I could see a problem with logging into Antigravity then exfiltrating the tokens to use somewhere else... But that doesn't sound like what happened. (And then how would they know?)

I haven't used Open Claw, so what else am missing to make this make sense?

discuss

integralpilot|8 days ago

To my understanding, OpenClaw pretends to be Antigravity by using the Antigravity OAuth client ID (and doesn't have its own), and then the takes the token Google returns to instead use with OpenClaw.

When I first tried OpenClaw and chose Google Sign-In, I noticed the window appeared saying "Sign into Google Antigravity" with a Google official mark, and a warning it shouldn't be used to sign into anything besides official Google apps. I closed it immediately and uninstalled OpenClaw as this was suspicious to me, and it was a relatively new project then.

It amazes me that the maintainer(s) allowed something like this...

anon84873628|8 days ago

Ah, ok. I guess there is no way for Google to prevent this since desktop apps are public clients that use PKCE.

I imagine Open Claw must also have registered the Antigravity custom URL scheme in order to receive the redirect.

Remaining question is how Google determines that traffic is not actually coming from Antigravity.

coffe2mug|7 days ago

> OAuth client ID (and doesn't have its own), and then the takes the token Google returns to instead use with OpenClaw.

Still surprised.

Client ID ok.

But openclaw needs the secret also?

Does it also mean Antigravity did not restrict to specific applications?

andrew_lettuce|7 days ago

>>it amazes me that the maintainer(s) allowed something like this...

Really? In today's landscape this is the part that surprises you? I'm seeing these types of decisions repeatedly and typically my only question is do they not know any better, or intentionally not care?