GHSA-hfpr-jhpq-x4rm

OpenClaw: `operator.write` chat.send could reach admin-only config writes

Medium npm

Severity: 4.3 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): —; No score published
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 2026.3.7; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

A gateway client authenticated with operator.write could route /config set or /config unset through chat.send and reach persistent config mutation even though direct config RPC methods are admin-scoped.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Latest published vulnerable version: 2026.3.2
Affected range: <= 2026.3.2
Patched in: 2026.3.7

Details

Before the fix, chat.send ran slash commands in an internal gateway-chat context with CommandAuthorized: true, and /config write paths only checked command authorization plus commands.config / channels.<provider>.configWrites gates. That allowed an authenticated operator.write gateway client to bridge into persistent config writes even though direct config.* RPC methods remain operator.admin scoped.

The fix keeps command functionality intact while restoring the intended scope boundary:

persistent /config set|unset writes routed through gateway chat.send now require operator.admin
read-only /config show remains available to normal write-scoped gateway clients
normal messaging-channel /config behavior remains unchanged

Impact

This is a real authorization mismatch, but exploitability requires an already authenticated gateway client with operator.write, chat.send access, and /config command support enabled. Maintainer severity is set to medium because the bug is a scoped control-plane privilege mismatch rather than a broad unauthenticated or generic remote compromise. The main consequence is unintended persistent config mutation.

Fix Commit(s)

5f8f58ae25e2a78f31b06edcf26532d634ca554e

Release Process Note

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

Thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed 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 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

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 9, 2026 Published
Mar 9, 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