Skip to content

GHSA-6mgf-v5j7-45cr CVE-2026-32913

OpenClaw: fetch-guard forwards custom authorization headers across cross-origin redirects

Critical npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.32%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
CWE-184 Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs
CWE-522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials
Fix
2026.3.7
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

OpenClaw's fetchWithSsrFGuard(...) followed cross-origin redirects while preserving arbitrary caller-supplied headers except for a narrow denylist (Authorization, Proxy-Authorization, Cookie, Cookie2). This allowed custom authorization headers such as X-Api-Key, Private-Token, and similar sensitive headers to be forwarded to a different origin after a redirect.

The fix switches cross-origin redirect handling from a narrow sensitive-header denylist to a safe-header allowlist, so only benign headers such as content negotiation and cache validators survive an origin change.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected versions: <= 2026.3.2
  • Patched version: 2026.3.7
  • Latest published npm version at patch time: 2026.3.2

Impact

A remote service that could trigger a redirect across origins could receive custom authorization credentials attached by OpenClaw callers. This can expose API keys, bearer-style custom headers, or private token headers intended only for the original destination.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 46715371b0612a6f9114dffd1466941ac476cef5

Verification

  • pnpm check passed
  • pnpm test:fast passed
  • Focused redirect regression tests passed
  • pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.gateway.config.ts still has unrelated current-main failures in src/gateway/server-channels.test.ts and src/gateway/server-methods/agents-mutate.test.ts

Release Process Note

npm 2026.3.7 was published on March 8, 2026. This advisory is fixed in the released package.

Thanks @Rickidevs for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openclaw
< 2026.3.7
2026.3.7

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 → 2026.3.7

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.3.7
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.3.7
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.3.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 9.3

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.

How to prevent it
  • 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 the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
  • Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
  • Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
  • Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-184: Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on detecting disallowed inputs. There are too many variants to encode a character, especially when different environments are used, so there is a high likelihood of missing some variants. Only use detection of disallowed inputs as a mechanism for detecting suspicious activity. Ensure that you are using other protection mechanisms that only identify "good" input - such as lists of allowed inputs - and ensure that you are properly encoding your outputs.

CWE-522: Insufficiently Protected Credentials

The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
  • Architecture and Design: Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
  • Implementation: Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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