GHSA-g7cr-9h7q-4qxq CVE-2026-34506

OpenClaw's MS Teams sender allowlist bypass when route allowlist is configured and sender allowlist is empty

Medium npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.27%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 19.60% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-289 Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name
Fix: 2026.3.8; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

OpenClaw's Microsoft Teams plugin widened group sender authorization when a team/channel route allowlist was configured but groupAllowFrom was empty. Before the fix, a matching route allowlist entry could cause the message handler to synthesize wildcard sender authorization for that route, allowing any sender in the matched team/channel to bypass the intended groupPolicy: "allowlist" sender check.

This does not affect default unauthenticated access, but it does weaken a documented Teams group authorization boundary and can allow unauthorized group senders to trigger replies in allowlisted Teams routes.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Latest published vulnerable version: 2026.3.7
Affected range: <= 2026.3.7
Fixed in released version: 2026.3.8

Fix Commit(s)

88aee9161e0e6d32e810a25711e32a808a1777b2

Release Verification

Verified fixed in GitHub release v2026.3.8 published on March 9, 2026.
Verified npm view openclaw version resolves to 2026.3.8.
Verified the release contains the regression test covering the Teams route-allowlist sender-bypass case and that the test passes against the v2026.3.8 tree.

Thanks @zpbrent for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 2026.3.8`	`2026.3.8`

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 → `2026.3.8`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.3.8

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.3.8

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.3.8

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-289: Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name

The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34506

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Mar 12, 2026 Published
Jul 24, 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