GHSA-33rq-m5x2-fvgf CVE-2026-28448

OpenClaw Twitch allowFrom is not enforced in optional plugin, unauthorized chat users can trigger agent pipeline

Medium npm

Severity: 6.3 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.52%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 43.90% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-285 Improper Authorization
Fix: 2026.2.1; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

In the optional Twitch channel plugin (extensions/twitch), allowFrom is documented as a hard allowlist of Twitch user IDs, but it was not enforced as a hard gate. If allowedRoles is unset or empty, the access control path defaulted to allow, so any Twitch user who could mention the bot could reach the agent dispatch pipeline.

Scope note: This only affects deployments that installed and enabled the Twitch plugin. Core OpenClaw installs that do not install/enable the Twitch plugin are not impacted.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Affected: >= 2026.1.29, < 2026.2.1
Fixed: >= 2026.2.1

Details

Affected component: Twitch plugin access control (extensions/twitch/src/access-control.ts).

Problematic logic in checkTwitchAccessControl():

When allowFrom was configured, the code returned allowed: true for members but did not return allowed: false for non-members, so execution fell through.
If allowedRoles was unset or empty, the function returned allowed: true by default, even when allowFrom was configured.

Proof of Concept (PoC)

Install and enable the Twitch plugin.
Configure an allowFrom list, but do not set allowedRoles (or set it to an empty list).
From a different Twitch account whose user ID is NOT in allowFrom, send a message that mentions the bot (for example @<botname> hello).
Observe the message is processed and can trigger agent dispatch/replies despite not being allowlisted.

Impact

Authorization bypass for operators who relied on allowFrom to restrict who can invoke the bot in Twitch chat. Depending on configuration (tools, routing, model costs), this could lead to unintended actions/responses and resource or cost exhaustion.

Fix Commit(s)

8c7901c984866a776eb59662dc9d8b028de4f0d0

Workaround

Upgrade to openclaw >= 2026.2.1.

Thanks @MegaManSec (https://joshua.hu) of AISLE Research Team for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`>= 2026.1.29, < 2026.2.1`	`2026.2.1`

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 → `2026.2.1`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.2.1

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.2.1

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 6.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: Present
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): Low
Integrity (vulnerable system): Low
Availability (vulnerable system): Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None
Exploit maturity: Not defined
Scope: X

CVSS 3.1 7.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
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-2026-28448

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Feb 17, 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