GHSA-mv9j-6xhh-g383 CVE-2026-28450

OpenClaw's unauthenticated Nostr profile HTTP endpoints allow remote profile/config tampering

High npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.40%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 33.69% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-285 Improper Authorization; CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
Fix: 2026.2.12; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

The OpenClaw Nostr channel plugin (optional, disabled by default, installed separately) exposes profile management HTTP endpoints under /api/channels/nostr/:accountId/profile (GET/PUT) and /api/channels/nostr/:accountId/profile/import (POST). In affected versions, these routes were dispatched via the gateway plugin HTTP layer without requiring gateway authentication, allowing unauthenticated remote callers to read or mutate the Nostr profile and persist changes to the gateway config. Profile updates are also published as a signed Nostr kind:0 event using the bot's private key.

Deployments that do not have the Nostr plugin installed and enabled are not impacted.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Affected versions: <= 2026.2.9
Fixed versions: >= 2026.2.12
Scope note: only affects deployments with the optional @openclaw/nostr plugin installed and enabled

Details

This is exploitable when the gateway HTTP port is reachable beyond localhost (for example: bound to 0.0.0.0, exposed on a LAN, behind a reverse proxy, or via Tailscale Funnel/Serve).

Unauthenticated callers could update the Nostr profile and persist the new profile in the gateway config.

Mitigation

Upgrade to openclaw 2026.2.12 or later.

As a temporary mitigation, restrict gateway HTTP exposure (bind loopback-only and/or enforce network-layer access controls) until upgraded.

Fix

Gateway now requires gateway authentication for plugin HTTP requests under /api/channels/* before dispatching to plugin handlers.

Fix commit(s):

647d929c9d0fd114249230d939a5cb3b36dc70e7

Thanks @simecek for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 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 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 6.2

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

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

Weakness

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
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.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28450

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Feb 17, 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