4 ms·

So the timeline is basically * User uses Google oauth to integrate their open claw * user gets banned from using Google AI services with no warning * user st

So the timeline is basically * User uses Google oauth to integrate their open claw * user gets banned from using Google AI services with no warning * user still gets charged If you go backwards, getting charged for services you can't access is rough. I feel sorry for those who are deeply integrated into Google services or getting banned on their main accounts. It's not a great situation. Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. I wonder if the situation will be different for business accounts as opposed what seems like personal accounts? The ban itself seems fair though, google is allowed to restrict usage of their services. Even though it's probably not developer friendly, it's within their rights to do so. I guess there's some level of post mortem to do on the openclaw side too. * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? * The plugin is literally called "google-antigravity-auth", why didn't that give the signal to the maintainers? * Why don't the maintainers, for an integration project, do due diligence checks on the terms of service of everything you're integrating with?

anon84873628 8mo ago
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?
- integralpilot 8mo 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 8mo 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.
    - overfeed 8mo ago
      > Remaining question is how Google determines that traffic is not actually coming from Antigravity. Spiralling here: high volumes, and tool calls that are not typical for an agentic IDE.
    - nfg 8mo ago
      If this is like the flow it uses for a codex / ChatGPT subscription it doesn’t even register a handler - the redirect opens as a 404 in your browser and there are instructions in copying the token from the query string!
  - coffe2mug 8mo 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?
    - danpalmer 8mo ago
      Antigravity runs on your machine, the secret is there for the taking. This is true of all OAuth client logins in this way, it's why the secret doesn't mean the same thing as it does with server to server login, you can never fully trust the client. OAuth impersonation is nothing new, it's a well known attack vector that can't really be worked around (without changing the UX), the solution is instead terms of service, policies, and enforcement.
  - andrew_lettuce 8mo 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?
axus 8mo ago
It doesn't seem fair at all; though I'm glad to see it's not as bad as I feared (yet?). > Hoping for some transparency, I left a single, polite comment asking for clarification on why the update was removed. Surprisingly, my forum account was banned shortly after posting that question.
Aurornis 8mo ago
> * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? OpenClaw went from virtually unheard of to a sensation in a couple weeks. There was intense commit activity and the main author bragged about not even reading the code himself. It was all heavily AI driven and moving at an extreme rate. Everyone was competing to get their commits in because they wanted to be a part of it. The entire project was a fast and furious experiment. Nobody was stopping to think if something was a good idea or not when someone published a plugin for using this endpoint. People just thought “cool!” and installed it.
- lucianbr 8mo ago
  That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on. But I guess it's only ok when you work on regular joe facing projects, where the consequences of bugs are on powerless users. If the consequences are on Google, well, that's not acceptable now is it?
  - ddalex 8mo ago
    The consequences for Google are that the people are misusing the keys and the Google is fixing that. They're not banning anybody using proper API keys
    - otabdeveloper4 8mo ago
      > using AI for vibes is a fast track to bugs and security incidents Yes, that's what he said.
    - ForHackernews 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - ddalex 8mo ago
        A human is not punished, the access of the robot to the API is restricted. The human has not suffered any damage.
shevy-java 8mo ago
> Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. Agreed. The lesson is: do not become dependent on Google. Ever. (Unfortunately I still use youtube and a chromium-based browser. Long-term I hope to find alternatives to both problems. Google search I no longer need because Google already ruined it a few years ago; the quality now is just horrible. I can not find anything useful with it anymore.)
- vincston 8mo ago
  What google search alternative have you found? Im trying out ecosia, duckduckgo and brave search, but i find their search results even worse, so in the second query i tend to bang to google..
  - fancy_pantser 8mo ago
    have you tried Kagi?
  - MrDresden 8mo ago
    Kagi
  - distances 8mo ago
    Have you tried Kagi yet? It's pretty popular among HN folks, and I find it easily worth the price.
    - bilekas 8mo ago
      Kagi indirectly funds the Kremlin's regime, just to know where your money goes if we're talking about not supporting google.
      - sapphicsnail 8mo ago
        How so?
      - simonklitj 8mo ago
fmbb 8mo ago
1. Did a human really knowingly decide to allow that? 2. Did a human create the plugin? 3. Are the maintainers human? By human I mean an animal that is intelligent enough to understand the agreements and what code they are writing.
- animuchan 8mo ago
  Most people aren't human then, sad.
  - saalweachter 8mo ago
    I think Dune is easily a top ten franchise among computer people, so that sort of thing is nothing new.
renegat0x0 8mo ago
I think as a society we miss some kind of 'laws', or 'rules' around accounts and banning. I feel that sometimes corporations have all 3 montesquieu powers. Google can define eulas, decide if you should be punished, and apply a ban. Can a shop decide who to serve? I may be wrong, but big tech should not be able to 'just close' accounts, or demonetize accounts on their whim.
bootsmann 8mo ago
Have you seen the code of OpenClaw? It would not surprise me if there is a mistake in there somewhere that causes the bot to hammer google auth for the refresh token in a very identifiable manner because noone in that repo is bothering to look at the code before merging. Moved fast, broke things.
inigyou 8mo ago
[dead]
RobotToaster 8mo ago
> Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? There's a good chance the plugin was written by gemini, why did it allow that?

anon84873628 8mo ago

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?

integralpilot 8mo 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 8mo 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.
  - overfeed 8mo ago
    > Remaining question is how Google determines that traffic is not actually coming from Antigravity. Spiralling here: high volumes, and tool calls that are not typical for an agentic IDE.
  - nfg 8mo ago
    If this is like the flow it uses for a codex / ChatGPT subscription it doesn’t even register a handler - the redirect opens as a 404 in your browser and there are instructions in copying the token from the query string!
- coffe2mug 8mo 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?
  - danpalmer 8mo ago
    Antigravity runs on your machine, the secret is there for the taking. This is true of all OAuth client logins in this way, it's why the secret doesn't mean the same thing as it does with server to server login, you can never fully trust the client. OAuth impersonation is nothing new, it's a well known attack vector that can't really be worked around (without changing the UX), the solution is instead terms of service, policies, and enforcement.
- andrew_lettuce 8mo 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?

axus 8mo ago

It doesn't seem fair at all; though I'm glad to see it's not as bad as I feared (yet?). > Hoping for some transparency, I left a single, polite comment asking for clarification on why the update was removed. Surprisingly, my forum account was banned shortly after posting that question.

Aurornis 8mo ago

> * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? OpenClaw went from virtually unheard of to a sensation in a couple weeks. There was intense commit activity and the main author bragged about not even reading the code himself. It was all heavily AI driven and moving at an extreme rate. Everyone was competing to get their commits in because they wanted to be a part of it. The entire project was a fast and furious experiment. Nobody was stopping to think if something was a good idea or not when someone published a plugin for using this endpoint. People just thought “cool!” and installed it.

lucianbr 8mo ago
That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on. But I guess it's only ok when you work on regular joe facing projects, where the consequences of bugs are on powerless users. If the consequences are on Google, well, that's not acceptable now is it?
- ddalex 8mo ago
  The consequences for Google are that the people are misusing the keys and the Google is fixing that. They're not banning anybody using proper API keys
  - otabdeveloper4 8mo ago
    > using AI for vibes is a fast track to bugs and security incidents Yes, that's what he said.
  - ForHackernews 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ddalex 8mo ago
      A human is not punished, the access of the robot to the API is restricted. The human has not suffered any damage.

shevy-java 8mo ago

> Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. Agreed. The lesson is: do not become dependent on Google. Ever. (Unfortunately I still use youtube and a chromium-based browser. Long-term I hope to find alternatives to both problems. Google search I no longer need because Google already ruined it a few years ago; the quality now is just horrible. I can not find anything useful with it anymore.)

vincston 8mo ago
What google search alternative have you found? Im trying out ecosia, duckduckgo and brave search, but i find their search results even worse, so in the second query i tend to bang to google..
- fancy_pantser 8mo ago
  have you tried Kagi?
- MrDresden 8mo ago
  Kagi
- distances 8mo ago
  Have you tried Kagi yet? It's pretty popular among HN folks, and I find it easily worth the price.
  - bilekas 8mo ago
    Kagi indirectly funds the Kremlin's regime, just to know where your money goes if we're talking about not supporting google.
    - sapphicsnail 8mo ago
      How so?
    - simonklitj 8mo ago

fmbb 8mo ago

1. Did a human really knowingly decide to allow that? 2. Did a human create the plugin? 3. Are the maintainers human? By human I mean an animal that is intelligent enough to understand the agreements and what code they are writing.

animuchan 8mo ago
Most people aren't human then, sad.
- saalweachter 8mo ago
  I think Dune is easily a top ten franchise among computer people, so that sort of thing is nothing new.

renegat0x0 8mo ago

I think as a society we miss some kind of 'laws', or 'rules' around accounts and banning. I feel that sometimes corporations have all 3 montesquieu powers. Google can define eulas, decide if you should be punished, and apply a ban. Can a shop decide who to serve? I may be wrong, but big tech should not be able to 'just close' accounts, or demonetize accounts on their whim.

bootsmann 8mo ago

Have you seen the code of OpenClaw? It would not surprise me if there is a mistake in there somewhere that causes the bot to hammer google auth for the refresh token in a very identifiable manner because noone in that repo is bothering to look at the code before merging. Moved fast, broke things.

inigyou 8mo ago

[dead]

RobotToaster 8mo ago

> Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? There's a good chance the plugin was written by gemini, why did it allow that?