Skip to content

GHSA-hv93-r4j3-q65f

OpenClaw Hook Session Key Override Enables Targeted Cross-Session Routing

High npm
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-330 Use of Insufficiently Random Values
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Fix
2026.2.12
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

The issue is not deterministic session keys by itself. The exploitable path was accepting externally supplied sessionKey values on authenticated hook ingress, allowing a hook token holder to route messages into chosen sessions.

Affected Behavior

  • POST /hooks/agent accepted payload sessionKey and used it directly for session routing.
  • Common session-key shapes (for example agent:main:dm:<peerId>) were often derivable from known metadata, making targeted routing practical when request-level override was enabled.

Attack Preconditions

  • Attacker can call hook endpoints with a valid hook token.
  • Hook ingress allows request-selected sessionKey values.
  • Target session keys can be derived or guessed.

Without those preconditions, deterministic key formats alone do not provide access.

Impact

  • Integrity: targeted message/prompt injection into chosen sessions.
  • Persistence: poisoned context can affect subsequent turns when the same session key is reused.
  • Confidentiality impact is secondary and depends on additional weaknesses.

Affected Versions

  • openclaw >= 2.0.0-beta3 and < 2026.2.12

Patched Versions

  • openclaw >= 2026.2.12

Fix

OpenClaw now uses secure defaults for hook session routing:

  • POST /hooks/agent rejects payload sessionKey unless hooks.allowRequestSessionKey=true.
  • Added hooks.defaultSessionKey for fixed ingress routing.
  • Added hooks.allowedSessionKeyPrefixes to constrain explicit routing keys.
  • Security audit warns on unsafe hook session-routing settings.

Recommended Configuration

{
  "hooks": {
    "enabled": true,
    "token": "${OPENCLAW_HOOKS_TOKEN}",
    "defaultSessionKey": "hook:ingress",
    "allowRequestSessionKey": false,
    "allowedSessionKeyPrefixes": ["hook:"]
  }
}

Credit

Thanks @alpernae for responsible reporting.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openclaw
>= 2.0.0-beta3, < 2026.2.12
2026.2.12

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 → 2026.2.12

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.2.12
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.2.12
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.12

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

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

Weakness

CWE-330: Use of Insufficiently Random Values

The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and select well-tested implementations with adequate length seeds. In general, if a pseudo-random number generator is not advertised as being cryptographically secure, then it is probably a statistical PRNG and should not be used in security-sensitive contexts. Pseudo-random number generators can produce predictable numbers if the generator is known and the seed can be guessed. A 256-bit seed is a good starting point for producing a "random enough" number.
  • Implementation: Consider a PRNG that re-seeds itself as needed from high quality pseudo-random output sources, such as hardware devices.
  • Architecture and Design, Requirements: Use products or modules that conform to FIPS 140-2 [REF-267] to avoid obvious entropy problems. Consult FIPS 140-2 Annex C ("Approved Random Number Generators").

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

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