Skip to content

GHSA-chm2-m3w2-wcxm

OpenClaw Google Chat spoofing access with allowlist authorized mutable email principal despite sender-ID mismatch

Low npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Low · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-290 Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2026.2.14
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

Google Chat allowlisting supports matching by sender email in addition to immutable sender resource name (users/<id>). This weakens identity binding if a deployment assumes allowlists are strictly keyed by immutable principals.

Affected Packages / Versions

(As of 2026-02-14; based on latest published npm versions)

  • openclaw (npm): <= 2026.2.13
  • clawdbot (npm): <= 2026.1.24-3

Details

Affected component:

  • extensions/googlechat/src/monitor.ts

The allowFrom checks accept:

  • Immutable sender id (users/<id>)
  • Raw email (alice@example.com) for usability

Historically, users/<email> was also treated as an email allowlist entry. This is now deprecated because it looks like an immutable ID but is actually a mutable principal.

Security Triage (2026-02-14)

Severity: Low

Rationale:

  • Requests are authenticated as coming from Google Chat (token verification), so this is not a generic unauthenticated spoofing vector.
  • A realistic exploit generally requires Google Workspace / IdP administrative control over identity lifecycle (e.g. reassigning an email address to a different underlying account) to obtain the same email with a different users/<id>.
  • With that level of access, the attacker typically has broader compromise paths.

We still treat it as a valid defense-in-depth report because accepting mutable principals in authorization decisions can increase risk in chained-failure scenarios.

Remediation / Behavior Changes

Goal: preserve usability while reducing footguns.

  • Raw email allowlists remain supported.
  • users/<email> is deprecated and treated as a user id, not as an email allowlist.
  • Documentation recommends users/<id> when strict immutable binding is required.

Fix Commit(s)

  • c8424bf29a921e25663b29f308640b3d91a49432 (PR #16243)

Thanks @vincentkoc for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
clawdbot
<= 2026.1.24-3
No fix yet
openclaw
< 2026.2.14
2026.2.14

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 → 2026.2.14

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.2.14
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.2.14
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.14

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

Weakness

CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
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