OpenClaw vs VeloFill: Security Comparison for Form Filling

If you only need help filling forms, you probably do not need a full AI agent platform.

That is the core idea of this article.

TL;DR: Key Takeaways

• OpenClaw had 4+ high-severity vulnerabilities in 2026 (all patched), including token exfiltration and RCE chains.
• Blast radius matters: More capabilities = larger attack surface = more security work.
• For form filling specifically, VeloFill’s narrow focus reduces exposure: local-first data, no gateway, explicit user control.
• Choose OpenClaw if you need multi-channel bots, remote agents, or team orchestration.
• Choose VeloFill if your primary task is filling web forms with less operational overhead.

Security snapshot (2026)

• Advisories cited here were patched in v2026.1.29 and v2026.2.14 (GHSA-g8p2-7wf7-98mq, GHSA-cv7m-c9jx-vg7q, CVE-2026-24763, CVE-2026-26327).
• OpenClaw’s security model is explicit about a trusted-operator, one-user boundary by default (OpenClaw security policy).
• OpenClaw docs recommend careful web exposure choices, including loopback defaults and stronger controls for non-loopback deployments (Web docs, Gateway security guidance).

OpenClaw is powerful, but it also has a larger attack surface because it is built for much more than form filling. That does not mean OpenClaw is “always unsafe”; it means secure operation usually needs more ongoing hardening and maintenance. If your use case is simple form filling, VeloFill is often the lower-risk choice.

The short answer

For simple form filling, VeloFill is usually the better security fit because:

• It is focused on one job instead of broad agent orchestration.
• Your knowledge base is local-first by design (see Knowledge Base).
• You can protect local data with a built-in encrypted vault (see Encryption).
• You explicitly control which endpoint and model are used (see Configure Connections).

If you truly need cross-channel bots, remote agent control, and advanced tool orchestration, OpenClaw can still be a good platform. But that is a different risk and maintenance profile.

Quick Comparison: VeloFill vs OpenClaw

What happened with OpenClaw security

OpenClaw has published many advisories in 2026, including high-severity findings in core flows (OpenClaw security overview, advisories list).

Examples from official records:

• A one-click chain where a crafted gatewayUrl could exfiltrate a token and enable gateway compromise, patched in v2026.1.29 (GHSA-g8p2-7wf7-98mq).
• Browser upload path traversal allowing arbitrary local file read in affected versions, patched in 2026.2.14 (GHSA-cv7m-c9jx-vg7q).
• Command injection in Docker sandbox execution before 2026.1.29 (CVE-2026-24763).
• Discovery/TLS trust weaknesses fixed in 2026.2.14 (CVE-2026-26327).

Again, these were patched. The important point for buyers is not panic. The point is blast radius. The more capabilities a system has, the more security work is required to keep it safe.

Why this matters for form filling specifically

Form filling is usually a narrow workflow:

1. Read form fields in the browser.
2. Pull relevant profile data.
3. Send a request to your chosen LLM.
4. Fill fields for user review.

You do not need remote execution, multi-channel message routing, or broad tool permissions for that basic flow.

OpenClaw is designed for larger workflows and has a gateway model by design, including web/control surfaces and optional HTTP endpoints (Web/Gateway docs, OpenAI chat endpoint docs). OpenClaw’s own guidance also emphasizes loopback-first defaults, strict auth for non-loopback setups, and careful deployment patterns (OpenClaw security policy, Web docs security notes).

That is good guidance. But if your workflow is only form filling, the simpler architecture is usually safer and easier to run correctly.

Why VeloFill can be safer for this use case

VeloFill’s model is intentionally narrow for browser form workflows.

Local data posture:

• Knowledge base content stays on device (see Knowledge Base).
• Privacy policy states core extension data handling is local, with data sent to your configured model provider only when you perform fills (see Privacy Policy).

Controlled provider setup:

• Connections are explicit and endpoint-based, so you choose exactly where requests go (see Configure Connections).

Data-at-rest protection:

• Vault encryption uses AES-256-GCM and PBKDF2 when enabled (see Encryption).

This is what “more secure for form filling” means in practice: less exposed surface, fewer privileged pathways, and easier hardening for normal users.

A fair comparison: where OpenClaw still wins

OpenClaw may still be the right choice if you need:

• Messaging automation across channels,
• Agent workflows that run on remote hosts,
• Tooling beyond browser form tasks,
• Team-level orchestration.

In those cases, OpenClaw’s power can justify the added complexity. Just treat security as a continuous operational task, not a one-time setup.

Simple decision framework

Choose VeloFill when:

• Your core task is filling web forms accurately and quickly.
• You want a local-first browser workflow.
• You want less setup and lower operational overhead.

Choose OpenClaw when:

• You need a general AI agent runtime with broad integrations.
• You are prepared to harden and maintain gateway security continuously.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is OpenClaw safe to use?

Yes, if you keep it updated and follow their security guidance. All reported vulnerabilities have been patched. The question is not “is it safe” but “what security overhead is required for your use case?” For complex agent workflows, OpenClaw is a legitimate choice. For simple form filling, the overhead may be unnecessary.

Can VeloFill do everything OpenClaw does?

No. VeloFill is purpose-built for browser form filling. It does not offer multi-channel messaging, remote agent execution, or team orchestration. If you need those features, OpenClaw (or similar platforms) are the right choice.

What if I need both?

Use each tool for its strengths. Run OpenClaw for complex automation workflows where you need its full capabilities. Use VeloFill for everyday form filling where you want lower overhead and a smaller attack surface.

Does VeloFill have any security certifications?

VeloFill is a browser extension, so it inherits the security sandbox provided by Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. It uses industry-standard encryption (AES-256-GCM with PBKDF2 key derivation) for vault protection. See our Encryption documentation for details.

Should I be worried about using OpenClaw after reading this?

No. The purpose of this article is not to create fear, but to help you match tools to use cases. OpenClaw’s security team has been responsive in patching issues. If you need OpenClaw’s capabilities, use it—just follow security best practices.

Practical next steps if you pick VeloFill

1. Configure your model endpoint in Configure Connections.
2. Organize your profile data in Knowledge Base.
3. Enable vault protection in Encryption.
4. Review provider data handling and your own usage policy in Privacy Policy.

That setup gives most users a strong security baseline for everyday form filling without running a full agent platform.

The bottom line

Security is not about finding the “most secure” tool—it is about finding the right tool for your threat model and use case.

OpenClaw is a powerful AI agent platform with a broader feature set and, consequently, a larger attack surface. Its 2026 security advisories demonstrate that capability comes with responsibility: regular updates, careful deployment, and ongoing security hygiene.

VeloFill is a focused browser extension built for one job: filling forms. Its local-first architecture, BYOK model, and extension sandbox make it inherently simpler to secure for that specific task.

For most users whose primary need is AI-assisted form filling, VeloFill offers a better security-to-effort ratio. You get the productivity benefits without the operational overhead of maintaining a full agent platform.

Related resources

• Knowledge Base
• Encryption
• Configure Connections
• VeloFill vs Chrome Autofill

Ready to try a simpler, safer approach to form filling? Install VeloFill and set up your first knowledge base in under 10 minutes.