Skip to content

GHSA-pchc-86f6-8758 CVE-2026-26316

OpenClaw BlueBubbles webhook auth bypass via loopback proxy trust

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.36%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

In affected versions, the optional BlueBubbles iMessage channel plugin could accept webhook requests as authenticated based only on the TCP peer address being loopback (127.0.0.1, ::1, ::ffff:127.0.0.1) even when the configured webhook secret was missing or incorrect. This does not affect the default iMessage integration unless BlueBubbles is installed and enabled.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • npm: openclaw < 2026.2.13
  • npm: @openclaw/bluebubbles < 2026.2.13

Details

If a deployment exposes the BlueBubbles webhook endpoint through a same-host reverse proxy (or an attacker can reach loopback via SSRF), an unauthenticated party may be able to inject inbound webhook events into the agent pipeline.

Fix Commit(s)

  • f836c385ffc746cb954e8ee409f99d079bfdcd2f
  • 743f4b28495cdeb0d5bf76f6ebf4af01f6a02e5a (defense-in-depth)

Mitigations

  • Set a non-empty BlueBubbles webhook password.
  • Avoid deployments where a public-facing reverse proxy forwards to a loopback-bound Gateway without strong upstream authentication.

Thanks @MegaManSec (https://joshua.hu) of AISLE Research Team for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@openclaw/bluebubbles
< 2026.2.13
2026.2.13
openclaw
< 2026.2.13
2026.2.13

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/bluebubbles npm → 2026.2.13

npm
npm install @openclaw/bluebubbles@2026.2.13
yarn
yarn add @openclaw/bluebubbles@2026.2.13
pnpm
pnpm add @openclaw/bluebubbles@2026.2.13

openclaw npm → 2026.2.13

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.2.13
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.2.13
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.13

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
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