Hunting OpenClaw and Agentic AI Through Behavior

Hunt Mode with Nebulock

This series breaks down modern threats by focusing on the one thing attackers cannot hide: behavior. It centers on the actions, decisions, and required steps that expose autonomous tooling misuse. Rather than replying on signatures or package names, Hunt Mode focuses on the behaviors that remain consistent even as frameworks change. It provides guidance on how to baseline, hunt, and validate agentic activity in your environment. To hunt these behaviors in this post, you need basic visibility into process execution, parent-child relationships, filesystem activity in user directories, and command-line arguments. EDR process logs and standard endpoint telemetry are sufficient to operationalize every behavior in this breakdown.

‍

Agentic AI frameworks like OpenClaw represent a shift in endpoint risk. These tools are not exploits, malware droppers, or implants. They are legitimate automation systems capable of memory retention, credential storage, and autonomous decision-making.

When deployed outside approved workflows, the danger is not in how they look but what they must do to function.

To detect that misuse, you must hunt the behaviors that agentic tooling cannot avoid.

This Hunt Mode breaks down the behaviors that give away OpenClaw (formerly ClawdBot / Moltbot), regardless of how it is packaged, renamed, or delivered. H/t to our customers who proactively created detection rules for this threat that inspired this post.

What Is OpenClaw and Why Hunt It?

OpenClaw is an open-source agentic AI framework designed for developers who want persistent, autonomous assistants on their endpoints. It handles task execution, remembers context across sessions, stores credentials for API access, and makes decisions without constant human input.

In approved workflows, it is a productivity tool. Engineering teams use it to automate repetitive tasks, manage local environments, and interact with external services. The problem is what makes it useful also makes it dangerous.

An agentic framework that can store secrets, remember instructions, and act autonomously is one configuration file away from becoming an insider threat. It does not need to be exploited. It just needs to be misused, pointed at the wrong data, given credentials it should not have, or deployed where no one is watching.

Unlike traditional malware, OpenClaw will not trip signature-based detections, or even next-generation antivirus platforms as it’s not malicious by design. But when it appears on endpoints outside sanctioned development environments, or when its memory files start accumulating sensitive context, the risk profile changes.

You are not hunting malware, you are hunting capability in the wrong hands.

Initial Access & Installation: When Software Arrives Outside Normal Tooling

OpenClaw installation is the first unavoidable behavioral step. Regardless of delivery method, the agent must be installed, cloned, or initialized on disk.

What to Observe

• Package manager activity in user contexts:
  
  • pip install, pip3 install, python -m pip install
  • npm install, npm i, yarn add, pnpm add
• Git-based installs:
  
  • git clone of repositories referencing agent frameworks
• Installation outside approved deployment windows or CI systems
• Package managers invoked by interactive shells rather than automation

Why It Stands Out

Production systems and user workstations have predictable software installation patterns. New agent frameworks installed manually (especially outside build pipelines) create a clear deviation.

Even when the package name is obfuscated, the act of installing runtime-capable automation tooling cannot be hidden.

Initialization & Configuration: When Memory and Identity Appear on Disk

Once installed, OpenClaw must initialize persistent state. This is where agentic tooling becomes visible.

What to Observe

• Creation of hidden configuration directories:
  
  • ~/.openclaw/
  • ~/.clawdbot/
  • ~/.moltbot/
    
    
• Creation of characteristic files:
  
  • openclaw.json
  • auth-profiles.json
  • memory.md
  • SOUL.md
• Directory structures resembling long-term memory or persona storage

Why It Stands Out

Most developer tools do not create hidden, user-scoped memory stores. Agentic frameworks require persistence to function, and that persistence leaves a filesystem footprint that survives renaming and refactoring.

Execution: When Agents Begin Acting

After initialization, the agent must execute. This is often where intent becomes clearer.

What to Observe

• CLI execution of agent entrypoints:
  
  • openclaw, clawdbot, moltbot
• Interpreters launching agent code:
  
  • python …openclaw…
  • node …openclaw…
• Repeated execution shortly after install or configuration
• Execution from user home directories rather than system paths

Why It Stands Out

Legitimate automation frameworks are usually embedded into workflows. Agentic tooling launched manually, repeatedly, or experimentally is often exploratory, which is a common precursor to misuse.

Credential Access: When Agents Start Remembering Things They Shouldn’t

OpenClaw is designed to store secrets and identities to function autonomously. That makes credential access inevitable.

What to Observe

• Reads of auth-profiles.json from non-agent parent processes
• Access to agent memory files shortly after creation
• Correlation between agent execution and credential file access
• Non-interactive processes reading agent secrets

Why It Stands Out

Credential access patterns are normally tied to browsers, package managers, or OS services. When generic processes or unexpected parents access agent credential stores, it signals repurposing rather than intended use.

Discovery: When Automation Starts Looking Around

Agentic tooling often explores its environment to improve task performance.

What to Observe

• System enumeration following agent execution:
  
  • whoami, id, hostname, uname
• File discovery patterns shortly after install:
  
  • Rapid access to multiple directories
• Environment variable inspection from agent context

Why It Stands Out

Humans explore systems interactively. Agents explore them systematically and quickly. The timing and sequence (not the individual commands) give this away.

Persistence: When Tools Try to Survive Restarts

Autonomous tooling benefits from persistence. This is where risk escalates.

What to Observe

• Agent-related files referenced in:
  
  • cron jobs
  • scheduled tasks
  • user-level startup scripts
• Configuration directories modified repeatedly over time
• Agent execution shortly after reboot or login

Why It Stands Out

Most developer tools rely on users to launch them. Agentic frameworks attempting persistence blur the line between automation and malware.

Lateral Movement: When Agents Start Reaching

Agentic tooling with stored credentials and autonomous execution is built to interact with external systems. When misused, that capability extends to internal targets.

What to Observe

Outbound authentication from agent context:

• SSH connections initiated shortly after agent execution
• API calls to internal services using credentials from agent config
• Cloud CLI tools (aws, gcloud, az) invoked by agent processes

Unexpected network targets:

• Agent processes connecting to internal IP ranges
• Connections to services the user does not normally access
• Lateral DNS lookups or SMB activity following agent initialization

Credential reuse patterns:

• Tokens or keys from auth-profiles.json used against new targets
• Agent-initiated authentication to systems outside its stated scope

Why It Stands Out

Agentic tools are designed to reach out to APIs, to cloud services, to external endpoints. That is expected behavior.

What is not expected is an agent reaching inward to internal hosts, adjacent systems, or services unrelated to its configured purpose. The pivot from external automation to internal access is where misuse becomes compromise.

Cross-correlate agent execution with network telemetry. If OpenClaw runs and then something on your network gets touched that should not be, you have found your thread to pull.

Data Collection & Exfiltration: When Memory Leaves the Host

Agentic tools store and summarize data. Misuse turns that data into an exfiltration risk.

What to Observe

• Compression or staging of agent memory files
• Network transmission shortly after memory access
• Uploads originating from processes that accessed agent directories
• Repeated outbound connections following agent execution

Why It Stands Out

As with all attack patterns, the sequence matters, Legitimate tools do not typically:

1. Read long-term memory
2. Compress it
3. Transmit it externally
   …all within minutes.

Behavioral Hunts Catch What Names Can’t Hide

OpenClaw can be renamed, its repositories moved, its binaries changed.

But it still must:

• be installed
• initialize memory
• store credentials
• execute autonomously
• access its own state
• persist or communicate

Each step leaves a behavioral fingerprint.

If you hunt the behavior instead of the tool name, you detect agent misuse, not just OpenClaw. Just in case, here’s a summary table to help you quickly scan for reference behavioral indicators.

Happy hunting!

Quick Reference: OpenClaw Behavioral Indicators

‍

‍

‍