GHSA-25pw-4h6w-qwvm CVE-2026-32006

OpenClaw has a BlueBubbles group allowlist mismatch via DM pairing-store fallback

Medium npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.31%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.50% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 2026.2.26; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

In openclaw@2026.2.25, BlueBubbles group authorization could incorrectly treat DM pairing-store identities as group allowlist identities when dmPolicy=pairing and groupPolicy=allowlist.

A sender that was only DM-paired (not explicitly present in groupAllowFrom) could pass group sender checks for message and reaction ingress.

Per OpenClaw's SECURITY.md trust model, this is a constrained authorization-consistency issue, not a multi-tenant boundary bypass or host-privilege escalation.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Latest published npm version at triage time: 2026.2.25
Affected versions: <= 2026.2.25
Patched versions: >= 2026.2.26 (planned next release)

Technical Details

Root cause was DM/group allowlist composition where DM pairing-store identities could flow into group authorization decisions.

Fix approach:

centralize DM/group authorization composition via shared resolvers
remove local DM/group list recomposition at channel callsites
add cross-channel regression coverage for message + reaction ingress
add CI guard to block future pairing-store leakage into group auth composition

Impact

Affects deployments using BlueBubbles with groupPolicy=allowlist and dmPolicy=pairing when pairing-store entries are present.
Could allow DM-authorized identities to be treated as group-authorized without explicit groupAllowFrom membership.
Does not bypass gateway auth, sandbox boundaries, or create new host-level privilege beyond existing DM authorization.

Fix Commit(s)

051fdcc428129446e7c084260f837b7284279ce9

Release Process Note

patched_versions is pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.26) so once npm 2026.2.26 is published, this advisory can be published without further content edits.

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 2026.2.26`	`2026.2.26`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

openclaw npm → `2026.2.26`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.2.26

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.2.26

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.26

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: None
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): None
Integrity (vulnerable system): Low
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None

CVSS 3.1 4.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32006

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Mar 3, 2026 Published
Jun 17, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-3x84-qq85-fj65 OpenClaw: Browser CDP discovery could accept blocked WebSocket URLs	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-9c3v-684m-579c OpenClaw MCP SSE redirects could forward Authorization headers	Medium	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-f397-5vjw-v2c2 OpenClaw: Shell inline-command parsing could miss an allowlist check	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-rx78-29qr-5hq8 OpenClaw: Workspace-derived service PATH could influence trash command selection	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-ccwh-wwpp-6wg5 OpenClaw: Host environment sanitizer missed two Node.js control variables	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-985f-72mj-8gf7 OpenClaw: Tool group policy callers could accept unvalidated group IDs	Medium	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-9v8j-9c9g-w66c OpenClaw: Bootstrap token replay could widen pending pairing scopes	Medium	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-c226-q6fx-6j6c OpenClaw: macOS Swift exec allowlist missed combined POSIX inline flags	Medium	Also affects openclaw

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor