GHSA-wj55-88gf-x564 CVE-2026-35648

OpenClaw may have stale policy enforcement for queued node actions

Medium npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.22%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 12.28% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 2026.3.22; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

Queued node actions were not revalidated against current command policy when later delivered, so stale allowlists or declarations could survive policy tightening.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Affected: < 2026.3.22
Fixed: >= 2026.3.22
Latest released tag checked: v2026.3.23-2 (630f1479c44f78484dfa21bb407cbe6f171dac87)
Latest published npm version checked: 2026.3.23-2

Fix Commit(s)

ec2c6d83b9f5f91d6d9094842e0f19b88e63e3e2

Release Status

The fix shipped in v2026.3.22 and remains present in v2026.3.23 and v2026.3.23-2.

Code-Level Confirmation

src/gateway/server-methods/nodes.ts now revalidates queued actions against the current allowlist and declared command set at delivery time.
src/gateway/server-methods/nodes.invoke-wake.test.ts includes the shipped stale-queue regression coverage.

OpenClaw thanks @zpbrent for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 2026.3.22`	`2026.3.22`

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 → `2026.3.22`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.3.22

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.3.22

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.3.22

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 3.7

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

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

Weakness

CWE-367: Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition

The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.

How to prevent it

Implementation: The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
Implementation: When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
Architecture and Design: Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
Implementation, Architecture and Design: If you cannot perform operations atomically and you must share access to the resource between multiple processes or threads, then try to limit the amount of time (CPU cycles) between the check and use of the resource. This will not fix the problem, but it could make it more difficult for an attack to succeed.
Implementation: Recheck the resource after the use call to verify that the action was taken appropriately.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that some environmental locking mechanism can be used to protect resources effectively.
Implementation: Ensure that locking occurs before the check, as opposed to afterwards, such that the resource, as checked, is the same as it is when in use.

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

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35648

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Mar 26, 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