GHSA-7ff8-xjh3-mgh6

OpenClaw's non-default autoAllowSkills setting could bypass on-miss exec prompt

High npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): —; No score published
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-266 Incorrect Privilege Assignment; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 2026.2.23; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

In openclaw versions up to and including 2026.2.22-2, a non-default exec-approval configuration could allow a skill-name collision to bypass an ask=on-miss prompt.

When autoAllowSkills=true, a path-scoped executable such as ./skill-bin could resolve to basename skill-bin, satisfy the skills allowlist segment, and run without prompting for approval.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: npm openclaw
Affected versions: <= 2026.2.22-2
Patched versions: >= 2026.2.23 (released)

Configuration Scope (Not Default)

This behavior requires non-default settings and does not affect default installs.

Required conditions:

autoAllowSkills=true (default is false)
system.run with security=allowlist
ask=on-miss

Technical Details

The allowlist evaluator accepted skills satisfaction by bin-name match, so ./skill-bin could match skillBins.has("skill-bin") after resolution.

The fix hardens skill auto-allow matching by requiring:

a pathless invocation token (no / or \\), and
a trusted resolved executable path for that skill bin on the machine where skills run.

This preserves normal skill-bin ... behavior while preventing ./<skill-bin> and absolute-path basename collisions from auto-satisfying skills.

Impact

In affected non-default configurations, approval prompts could be skipped for commands that should have required operator confirmation.

Fix Commit(s)

ffd63b7a2c4c6d5aeb4710ef951d5794ad7ad77b (fix(security): trust resolved skill-bin paths in allowlist auto-allow)

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 2026.2.23`	`2026.2.23`

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 → `2026.2.23`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.2.23

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.2.23

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.23

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

Weakness

CWE-266: Incorrect Privilege Assignment

A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

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

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Mar 3, 2026 Published
Mar 4, 2026 Last updated by the source

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