GHSA-jhpv-5j76-m56h CVE-2026-42438
OpenClaw: Sender policy bypass in host media attachment reads allows unauthorized local file disclosure
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.24%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 14.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
2026.4.10- Upgrade openclaw to this version or later
Description
Summary
OpenClaw's outbound host-media attachment read helper could enable host-local file reads based on global or agent-level read access without also honoring sender and group-scoped tool policy. In channel deployments that used toolsBySender or group policy to deny read for less-trusted senders, a denied sender could still trigger host-media attachment loading and cause readable local files to be returned through the outbound media path.
Affected Versions
This issue is known to affect OpenClaw 2026.4.9. Earlier versions were not confirmed during triage, so the advisory range is intentionally scoped to >= 2026.4.9 < 2026.4.10.
Impact
Affected deployments are those that both allow host read or filesystem root expansion at the global/agent level and rely on sender or group-scoped policy to deny read for some channel participants. In that configuration, the intended sender/group authorization boundary could be bypassed for outbound media reads, potentially disclosing host-local files readable by the OpenClaw process.
The issue does not require treating the model prompt as the security boundary. The vulnerable behavior was a concrete policy enforcement mismatch: sender/group policy denied read, while the host-media read helper could still be installed without that sender context.
Resolution
Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.4.10 by PR #64459, commit c949af9fabf3873b5b7c484090cb5f5ab6049a98. The fix threads sender, session, channel, and account context into outbound media access resolution and intersects host-media read capability creation with the existing group tool policy for read. When a concrete sender/group override denies read, OpenClaw no longer creates the host readFile media capability.
Additional attachment canonicalization hardening shipped in 2026.4.14, but the authorization bypass described here was fixed in 2026.4.10.
Credit
Thanks to @Telecaster2147 for reporting this issue.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openclaw | >= 2026.4.9, < 2026.4.10 |
2026.4.10 |
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 → 2026.4.10
- npm
npm install openclaw@2026.4.10- yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.4.10- pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.4.10
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.7
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| 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 |
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