The post Clawdbot Chaos: A Forced Rebrand, Crypto Scam and 24-Hour Meltdown appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In brief A trademark dispute sparked the chaoticThe post Clawdbot Chaos: A Forced Rebrand, Crypto Scam and 24-Hour Meltdown appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In brief A trademark dispute sparked the chaotic

Clawdbot Chaos: A Forced Rebrand, Crypto Scam and 24-Hour Meltdown

In brief

  • A trademark dispute sparked the chaotic rebrand and account hijacking of the viral AI app, Clawdbot.
  • In minutes, the unaffiliated CLAWD token surged to a $16 million market cap before collapsing.
  • Security researchers uncover exposed Clawdbot instances and credential risks.

A few days ago, Clawdbot was one of GitHub’s hottest open-source projects, boasting more than 80,000 stars. It’s an impressive piece of engineering that lets you run an AI assistant locally with full system access through messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Discord.

Today, it’s been forced into a legal rebrand, overrun by crypto scammers, linked to a fake token that briefly hit a $16 million market cap before collapsing, and criticized by researchers who found exposed gateways and accessible credentials.

The reckoning started after Anthropic sent founder Peter Steinberger a trademark claim. The AI company—whose Claude models power many Clawdbot installations—decided that “Clawd” looked too much like “Claude.” Fair enough. Trademark law is trademark law.

That, however, triggered a variety of problems that soon cascaded.

Steinberger announced the rebrand from Clawdbot—the name was a play on lobsters, apparent (don’t ask)—to Moltbot on X. The community seemed fine with it. “Same lobster soul, new shell,” the project’s account wrote.

Next, Steinberger renamed the GitHub organization and the X account simultaneously. But in the short gap between releasing the old handles and securing the new ones, crypto scammers hijacked both accounts.

The hacked accounts immediately started pumping a fake token called CLAWD on Solana. Within hours, speculative traders drove the token to over $16 million in market capitalization.

Some early buyers claimed massive gains. Steinberger denied any involvement with the token. The capitalization collapsed and late buyers got wrecked.

“To all crypto folks: Please stop pinging me, stop harassing me,” Steinberger wrote. “I will never do a coin. Any project that lists me as coin owner is a SCAM. No, I will not accept fees. You are actively damaging the project.”

The crypto crowd didn’t take the rejection well. Some speculators believed Steinberger’s denial caused their losses and launched harassment campaigns. He faced accusations of betrayal, demands that he “take responsibility,” and coordinated pressure to endorse projects he’d never heard of.

Steinberger was ultimately able to gain control of the accounts. But in the meantime, security researchers decided this was a good time to point out that hundreds of Clawdbot instances were exposed to the public internet with zero authentication. In other words, users would give unsupervised permissions to the AI that could easily be exploited by bad guys.

As reported by Decrypt, AI developer Luis Catacora ran Shodan scans and found a lot of problems were caused basically by novice users giving the agent too many permissions. “I just checked Shodan and there are exposed gateways on port 18789 with zero auth,” he wrote. “That’s shell access, browser automation, your API keys. Cloudflare Tunnel is free, there’s no excuse.”

Jamieson O’Reilly, founder of red-teaming company Dvuln, also found it was very easy to identify vulnerable servers. “Of the instances I’ve examined manually, eight were open with no authentication at all,” O’Reilly told The Register. Dozens more had partial protections that didn’t fully eliminate exposure.

The technical problem? Clawdbot’s authentication system automatically approves localhost connections—that is, connections to your own machine. When users run the software behind a reverse proxy, which most do, all connections appear to come from 127.0.0.1 and get automatically authorized, even when they originate externally.

Blockchain security firm SlowMist confirmed the vulnerability and warned that multiple code flaws could lead to credential theft and remote code execution. Researchers have demonstrated different prompt injection attacks, including one via email that tricked an AI instance into forwarding private messages to an attacker. It took mere minutes.

“This is what happens when viral growth hits before security audit,” FounderOS developer Abdulmuiz Adeyemo wrote. “‘Build in public’ has a dark side nobody talks about.”

The good news for AI hobbyists and devs that the project itself hasn’t died. Moltbot is the same software Clawdbot was; the code is solid and, despite the hype, not especially noob-friendly. The use cases are real, but still not ready for mainstream adoption. And the security issues remain.

Running an autonomous AI agent with shell access, browser control, and credential management creates attack surfaces that traditional security models weren’t designed for. The economics of these systems—local deployment, persistent memory, and proactive tasks—drive adoption faster than the industry’s security posture can adapt.

And the crypto scammers are still out there, watching for the next chaos window. All it takes is one oversight, one mistake, or one gap. Ten seconds, as it turns out, is plenty.

Daily Debrief Newsletter

Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

Source: https://decrypt.co/356191/clawdbot-chaos-forced-rebrand-crypto-scam-24-hour-meltdown

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

The post Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On the lookout for a Sector – Tech fund? Starting with Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX – Free Report) should not be a possibility at this time. PGTAX possesses a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 4 (Sell), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance. Objective We note that PGTAX is a Sector – Tech option, and this area is loaded with many options. Found in a wide number of industries such as semiconductors, software, internet, and networking, tech companies are everywhere. Thus, Sector – Tech mutual funds that invest in technology let investors own a stake in a notoriously volatile sector, but with a much more diversified approach. History of fund/manager Putnam Funds is based in Canton, MA, and is the manager of PGTAX. The Putnam Global Technology A made its debut in January of 2009 and PGTAX has managed to accumulate roughly $650.01 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by Di Yao who has been in charge of the fund since December of 2012. Performance Obviously, what investors are looking for in these funds is strong performance relative to their peers. PGTAX has a 5-year annualized total return of 14.46%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 27.02%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame. It is important to note that the product’s returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund’s [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower. When looking at a fund’s performance, it…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:05
SEC Approves Grayscale’s Digital Large Cap Fund for Trading

SEC Approves Grayscale’s Digital Large Cap Fund for Trading

SEC greenlights GDLC, the first U.S.-listed multi-asset crypto ETF, offering exposure to BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL and ADA.
Share
CryptoPotato2025/09/18 17:55
‘Scam’ claims spread after Trump’s Super Bowl crypto donation pitch

‘Scam’ claims spread after Trump’s Super Bowl crypto donation pitch

AI concerns and lack of disclosure sparked controversy, raising questions about legality, ethics, and campaign transparency rules.
Share
Coinstats2026/02/09 20:15