GHSA-g34w-4xqq-h79m CVE-2026-26328

OpenClaw iMessage group allowlist authorization inherited DM pairing-store identities

Medium npm

Severity: 6.5 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.32%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 24.82% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-284 Improper Access Control; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: Available; 2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

Under iMessage groupPolicy=allowlist, group authorization could be satisfied by sender identities coming from the DM pairing store, broadening DM trust into group contexts.

Details

Affected component: src/imessage/monitor/monitor-provider.ts.

Vulnerable logic derived effectiveGroupAllowFrom using both the static group allowlist and DM pairing-store identities (storeAllowFrom). This allowed a sender approved via DM pairing to satisfy group authorization in groups even if the sender/chat was not explicitly present in groupAllowFrom.

This weakens boundary separation between DM pairing and group allowlist authorization.

Affected Packages / Versions

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

Fix Commit(s)

openclaw/openclaw@872079d42fe105ece2900a1dd6ab321b92da2d59
openclaw/openclaw@90d1e9cd71419168b2faa54a759b124a3eacfae7

Thanks @vincentkoc for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
clawdbot	`< 2026.2.14`	`2026.2.14`
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.

clawdbot npm → `2026.2.14`

npm

npm install clawdbot@2026.2.14

yarn

yarn add clawdbot@2026.2.14

pnpm

pnpm add clawdbot@2026.2.14

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 3.1 6.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-284: Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized 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: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

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-2026-26328

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Feb 18, 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