GHSA-pjvx-rx66-r3fg

OpenClaw: Cross-account sender authorization expansion in `/allowlist ... --store` account scoping

Medium npm

Severity: 5.4 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): —; No score published
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 2026.3.7; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

/allowlist ... --store resolved the selected channel accountId for reads, but store writes still dropped that accountId and wrote into the legacy unscoped pairing allowlist store.

Because default-account reads still merge legacy unscoped entries, a store entry intended for one account could silently authorize the same sender on the default account.

This is a real cross-account sender-authorization scoping bug. Severity is set to medium because exploitation requires an already-authorized user who can run /allowlist edits.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Latest published version checked: 2026.3.2
Affected versions: <= 2026.3.2
Fixed on main: March 7, 2026 in 70da80bcb5574a10925469048d2ebb2abf882e73
Patched release: 2026.3.7

Details

The affected path was:

src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:386-393 resolved accountId and read store state with it
src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:697-702 and src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:730-733 wrote store state without passing accountId
src/pairing/pairing-store.ts:231-234 and src/pairing/pairing-store.ts:534-554 still merged legacy unscoped allowlist entries into the default account

The fix scopes /allowlist ... --store writes to the resolved account and clears legacy default-account store entries on removal so legacy reads no longer create cross-account authorization bleed-through.

Impact

Vulnerability class: improper authorization scoping / incorrect authorization
Exploitation requires: an already-authorized sender who can run /allowlist edits
Security effect: unintended authorization expansion from one channel account into default

Fix Commit(s)

70da80bcb5574a10925469048d2ebb2abf882e73 — scope /allowlist ... --store writes by account and clean up legacy default-account removals

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 5.4

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

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

Weakness

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.

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