GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83: OpenClaw Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
MODERATEGHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83 is a MODERATE (CVSS 6.5) remote code execution vulnerability (CWE-862: Missing Authorization) affecting OpenClaw libraries in the npm ecosystem. The issue involves mutating internal `/allowlist` chat commands missed `operator.admin` scope enforcement. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 2026.3.24.
GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83 at a Glance
Security Impact
CVSS: 6.5
The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N).
How to Fix GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83
To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected OpenClaw dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.
npm install openclaw@2026.3.24
Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:
npm ls openclaw
How to Check if You Are Affected
To determine whether your Node.js application is affected by GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83, inspect your project dependencies using npm:
npm ls openclaw
Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of OpenClaw in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 2026.3.24), your application is affected.
Note: The npm ls openclaw command inspects dependencies declared in your package.json and lockfile; it does not perform automated runtime dynamic scanning.
Technical Details
Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis
This vulnerability is classified under CWE-862: Missing Authorization, where the product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. In OpenClaw, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.
Source Advisory Statement
GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83 Affected OpenClaw Versions
1 component(s)| Product / Package | Ecosystem | Affected Versions | Fixed Version |
|---|---|---|---|
|
openclaw
|
npm |
< 2026.3.24
|
2026.3.24
|
References
Frequently Asked Questions
What is GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83?
Which OpenClaw versions are affected?
What version fixes GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83?
Is openclaw affected?
What is the CVSS score of GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83?
What CWE is associated with GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83?
How can I check npm dependencies for GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83?
Machine-readable OSV JSON
OSV v1.5 Schema
{
"schema_version" : "1.4.0",
"id" : "GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83",
"modified" : "2026-03-30T18:59:16Z",
"published" : "2026-03-30T18:59:16Z",
"aliases" : [ ],
"summary" : "OpenClaw: Mutating internal `/allowlist` chat commands missed `operator.admin` scope enforcement",
"details" : "> Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.\n\n**Title** \nMutating internal `/allowlist` chat commands missed `operator.admin` scope enforcement\n\n**CWE** \nCWE-862 Missing Authorization\n\n**CVSS v3.1** \nCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N \nBase score: **6.5 (Medium)**\n\n**Severity Assessment** \nMedium. This is a real authorization flaw in OpenClaw’s internal control plane. The issue does not require host access, trusted local state tampering, or multi-tenant assumptions, but exploitation does require an already authenticated internal Gateway caller with `operator.write`.\n\n**Impact** \nAn authenticated internal Gateway caller limited to `operator.write` can perform state-changing `/allowlist` actions without `operator.admin`, even though comparable mutating internal chat commands already require `operator.admin`. The reachable effects are persistent changes to config-backed `allowFrom` entries and pairing-store-backed allowlist entries.\n\nThis is not a semantic-modeling complaint and not a generic “trusted operator can do things” claim. It is a missing authorization check inside OpenClaw’s own internal scope model, where peer mutating command surfaces already distinguish `operator.write` from `operator.admin`.\n\n**Affected Component** \nVerified against the latest published GitHub release tag `v2026.3.23` (`ccfeecb6887cd97937e33a71877ad512741e82b2`), published `2026-03-23T23:15:50Z`.\n\nExact vulnerable path on the shipped tag:\n- `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:251-254`\n - `/allowlist` authorization uses only `rejectUnauthorizedCommand(...)`.\n- `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:386-524`\n - mutating config and pairing-store writes happen here, but there is no `requireGatewayClientScopeForInternalChannel(..., operator.admin, ...)`.\n\nReachability and scope model:\n- `src/gateway/method-scopes.ts:94-109`\n - `chat.send` is a write-scoped method.\n- `src/gateway/server.chat.gateway-server-chat.test.ts:539-559`\n - existing runtime coverage proves `chat.send` routes slash commands without an agent run.\n- `src/auto-reply/command-auth.ts:574-577`\n - internal callers become `senderIsOwner` only when `GatewayClientScopes` includes `operator.admin`.\n\nComparable internal mutating command paths already enforce `operator.admin`:\n- `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-config.ts:64-73`\n- `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-mcp.ts:89-96`\n- `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-plugins.ts:387-394`\n- `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-acp.ts:98-106`\n\nVersion history:\n- Introduced by commit `555b2578a8cc6e1b93f717496935ead97bfbed8b` (`feat: add /allowlist command`)\n- Earliest released affected tag found: `v2026.1.20`\n- Latest released affected tag verified: `v2026.3.23`\n\n**Technical Reproduction** \n1. Check out the shipped release tag `v2026.3.23`.\n2. Use an internal command context with:\n - `Provider = \"webchat\"`\n - `Surface = \"webchat\"`\n - `GatewayClientScopes = [\"operator.write\"]`\n - `params.command.channel = \"webchat\"`\n3. Route a slash command through `chat.send`.\n4. Execute either of these mutating commands:\n - `/allowlist add dm channel=telegram 789`\n - `/allowlist add dm --store channel=telegram 789`\n5. Confirm the command context is authorized but not owner-equivalent:\n - `isAuthorizedSender === true`\n - `senderIsOwner === false`\n6. Observe that the commands still succeed and perform persistent writes.\n\n**Demonstrated Impact** \nThe vulnerable handler performs real state mutation for a low-scope internal caller:\n- Config-backed mutation path:\n - `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:398-503`\n - reads the config snapshot, applies the edit, validates, and writes the updated config to disk.\n- Store-backed mutation path:\n - `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:479-485`\n - `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:513-518`\n - updates the pairing-store allowlist without any admin-scope gate.\n\nThe result is successful persistence, not just a misleading success message.\n\n**Environment** \n- Product: OpenClaw\n- Verified shipped tag: `v2026.3.23`\n- Shipped tag commit: `ccfeecb6887cd97937e33a71877ad512741e82b2`\n- Published GitHub release time: `2026-03-23T23:15:50Z`\n- Verification date: `2026-03-24`\n\n**Duplicate Check** \nThis is not a duplicate of:\n- `GHSA-pjvx-rx66-r3fg`\n - that advisory covered cross-account scoping in `/allowlist ... --store`, not missing internal `operator.admin` enforcement.\n- `GHSA-hfpr-jhpq-x4rm`\n - that advisory covered `/config` writes through `chat.send`, not `/allowlist`.\n- `GHSA-3w6x-gv34-mqpf`\n - same authorization class, but different command path (`/acp`, not `/allowlist`).\n\n**In Scope Check** \nThis report is in scope under `SECURITY.md` because:\n- it does **not** rely on adversarial operators sharing one gateway host or config;\n- it does **not** target the HTTP compatibility endpoints that `SECURITY.md` explicitly treats as full operator-access surfaces;\n- it demonstrates a real authorization mismatch inside OpenClaw’s own internal control-plane scope model (`operator.write` vs `operator.admin`);\n- peer mutating internal chat commands already enforce `operator.admin`, so this is not a request for a new boundary but a missing check on an existing one.\n\nThis is therefore a concrete authorization bug, not a trusted-operator hardening suggestion.\n\n**Remediation Advice** \n1. Add `requireGatewayClientScopeForInternalChannel(..., allowedScopes: [\"operator.admin\"], ...)` to the mutating internal `/allowlist` paths.\n2. Add regression coverage for both mutation modes:\n - internal `operator.write` must be rejected;\n - internal `operator.admin` must be allowed.\n3. Cover both config-backed and store-backed writes.\n4. Audit other mutating internal chat-command paths for the same missing-scope pattern.",
"severity" : [ {
"type" : "CVSS_V3",
"score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"
} ],
"affected" : [ {
"package" : {
"ecosystem" : "npm",
"name" : "openclaw"
},
"ranges" : [ {
"type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
"events" : [ {
"introduced" : "0"
}, {
"fixed" : "2026.3.24"
} ]
} ]
} ],
"references" : [ {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-vqvg-86cc-cg83"
}, {
"type" : "PACKAGE",
"url" : "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
} ],
"database_specific" : {
"cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-862" ],
"severity" : "MODERATE",
"github_reviewed" : true,
"github_reviewed_at" : "2026-03-30T18:59:16Z",
"nvd_published_at" : null
}
}