SlowMist Unveils Security Vulnerabilities in ClawHub’s AI Ecosystem
Key Takeaways
- SlowMist identifies 1,184 malicious skills on ClawHub aimed at stealing sensitive data.
- The identified threats include Base64-encoded backdoors that exfiltrate data to malicious servers.
- Users are advised to scrutinize commands in SKILL.md files and avoid unverified dependencies.
- ClawHub’s insufficient review mechanisms have allowed for a significant influx of malicious plugins.
- Recent incidents underscore the risks posed by inadequate security measures in AI plugin ecosystems.
WEEX Crypto News, 20 February 2026
In a significant development in the cybersecurity landscape, blockchain security firm SlowMist has uncovered major vulnerabilities within the ClawHub AI plugin ecosystem, operated by OpenClaw. According to an announcement on the X platform by Yu Xian, SlowMist’s founder, a staggering 1,184 malicious skills have been identified on the marketplace. These malicious plugins are designed to compromise sensitive data like SSH keys, cryptographic wallets, and browser passwords.
Malicious Skills and Security Breaches
The threat assessment carried out by SlowMist highlights a concerning trend in the digital security domain. The malicious skills identified are not just theoretical risks but active threats that have already been downloaded thousands of times. These skills exploit vulnerabilities in plugin directories following the AgentSkills standard, embedding harmful code within seemingly legitimate functions.
One prominent example of these threats involves the use of Base64-encoded backdoors. These backdoors activate upon execution, scanning user directories including ‘Desktop’, ‘Documents’, and ‘Downloads’ for sensitive files. The compromised data is then zipped along with system information and sent to command-and-control servers, such as the domain socifiapp.com, which has been flagged for Remote Access Trojan (RAT) activities since mid-2025.
Recommendations from SlowMist
To mitigate these threats, SlowMist recommends that users inspect all commands within SKILL.md files before allowing execution. This precautionary measure is crucial to prevent unauthorized data leakage or system compromise. Additionally, the importance of sourcing AI tool dependencies exclusively from verified channels cannot be overstated to ensure the integrity of the integrated systems.
The use of discrete AI environments is also advised, minimizing the risk posed by potentially harmful skills in complex Web3 environments. This is vital as the conventional contract-based security approaches in Web3 are proving insufficient against the evolving threat landscape.
Challenges in ClawHub
ClawHub’s plugin marketplace has rapidly evolved, attracting many AI developers due to its open-source nature. However, this growth has inadvertently attracted malicious actors exploiting its insufficient review mechanisms. Out of 2,857 plugins reviewed, security teams discovered 341 harboring malicious code, highlighting a significant breach of platform integrity. The unchecked distribution of these harmful plugins exemplifies a typical supply chain attack, compromising the very environments they are supposed to enhance.
This situation has pushed OpenClaw to enhance its review processes, aiming for a more rigorous control over its expanding plugin ecosystem. Users are urged to remain cautious and to refrain from executing unverified commands until more robust verification processes are established.
Broader Implications for AI and Security
The implications of these findings extend beyond ClawHub and highlight a pervasive issue within AI and plugin ecosystems. As demonstrated by the ongoing analyses and findings from SlowMist’s MistEye monitoring tool, the potential for widespread exploitation due to inadequate security protocols is substantial.
Furthermore, the recent financial exploit faced by Moonwell, a DeFi platform, underscores the vulnerabilities in smart contract code often co-authored by AI tools without adequate peer review. This incident, involving a misconfiguration leading to a $1.78 million loss, serves as a cautionary tale of the risks tied to AI-generated code in high-stakes environments.
FAQs
What are the primary threats identified by SlowMist on ClawHub?
SlowMist found that 1,184 malicious skills were uploaded to ClawHub, which exploit vulnerabilities to steal SSH keys, encrypted wallets, and more. These include skills with Base64-encoded backdoors that exfiltrate data.
How do the malicious skills on ClawHub operate?
These malicious skills hide harmful code that users inadvertently activate. On execution, they download additional malicious payloads, scan directories for sensitive information, and send this data to command-and-control servers.
What can users do to protect themselves from such threats?
SlowMist advises users to thoroughly inspect all commands found in SKILL.md files and avoid granting unnecessary permissions. It’s also crucial to source dependencies from trusted channels and employ isolated AI environments.
Why is ClawHub considered a target for supply chain attacks?
ClawHub’s rapid growth and open-source nature make it attractive to developers, but its weak review processes allow malicious plugins to proliferate, resulting in supply chain-style vulnerabilities.
How does the SlowMist discovery impact future security practices?
The findings highlight the urgent need for improved review mechanisms in AI and Web3 environments. Incorporating stringent security audits and separating code generation from execution are critical to mitigating these threats.
Embracing robust security protocols not only shields developers and systems from current threats but also fortifies against the rapidly evolving landscape of cyber threats. This call to action is particularly pertinent for platforms like ClawHub, which must bolster their defenses to sustain user trust and foster a secure digital ecosystem.
For more comprehensive coverage on how to protect your digital assets and the latest developments in blockchain security, consider joining the conversation on WEEX and explore different strategies to enhance your crypto portfolio. [Sign up with WEEX here](https://www.weex.com/register?vipCode=vrmi).
You may also like

2026 Crypto Taxes: Don't Miss These Staking & DeFi Reporting Rules
Stay compliant in 2026. Learn how to report crypto staking rewards, DeFi incentives, and airdrops. Follow our easy WEEX + KoinX workflow to generate accurate tax reports in minutes.
Crypto Tax Deadline 2026: How to Generate 2026 Crypto Tax Reports (WEEX & KoinX Fast Tutorial)
Still filing crypto taxes close to the 2026 deadline? Follow this step-by-step WEEX Tax API + KoinX workflow to export data and generate an accurate crypto tax report quickly.

Hyperliquid Ten Thousand Character Feature: Jeffrey's Billion Dollar Gold Mining Story

SaaS Churn | Rewire Daily News

There may not be a rate cut this year

CoinGecko Spot Report: Overview of 12 Major CEX Spot Markets, Only 32% of New Tokens Outperforming IEO Price

Even with Gunfire Behind Bars, Why Do American Small Towns Oppose AI Data Centers?

The Sky is the Limit: Wearing Only One Outfit, Cutting My Own Hair, and Giving Billions to Strangers — The Story Behind Hyperliquid

Atlético Madrid vs FC Barcelona: 90 Minutes to Destroy a Dream or Write History
Atlético Madrid vs FC Barcelona Champions League second leg is do-or-die. Full Atlético Madrid vs FC Barcelona lineups, stats, timeline — plus who chokes and who conquers.

Chinese-funded institutions retreat from Hong Kong stablecoins

Morning Report | Strategy invested $1 billion to increase its Bitcoin holdings last week; Aave passed a $25 million grant proposal; Coinone was shut down and fined for violating anti-money laundering obligations

Found a "meme coin" that skyrocketed in just a few days. Any tips?

TAO is Elon Musk, who invested in OpenAI, and Subnet is Sam Altman

The era of "mass coin distribution" on public chains comes to an end

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions
The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.
There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."
No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.
In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.
X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.
This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.
The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.
The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.
After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."
From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.
In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.
As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."
Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.
For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.
This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.
There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."
X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.
In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.
WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.
X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.
These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.
This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.
X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.
Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.
The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.
X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.
The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.
2026 Crypto Taxes: Don't Miss These Staking & DeFi Reporting Rules
Stay compliant in 2026. Learn how to report crypto staking rewards, DeFi incentives, and airdrops. Follow our easy WEEX + KoinX workflow to generate accurate tax reports in minutes.
Crypto Tax Deadline 2026: How to Generate 2026 Crypto Tax Reports (WEEX & KoinX Fast Tutorial)
Still filing crypto taxes close to the 2026 deadline? Follow this step-by-step WEEX Tax API + KoinX workflow to export data and generate an accurate crypto tax report quickly.
