GHSA-4RJ2-GPMH-QQ5X

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 21:36 – Updated: 2026-03-10 22:21
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaw has an inbound allowlist policy bypass in voice-call extension (empty caller ID + suffix matching)
Details

Summary

An authentication bypass in the optional voice-call extension/plugin allowed unapproved or anonymous callers to reach the voice-call agent when inbound policy was set to allowlist or pairing.

Deployments that do not install/enable the voice-call extension are not affected.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • openclaw (npm): <= 2026.2.1
  • Fixed in: >= 2026.2.2

Details

In affected versions (for example 2026.2.1), the inbound allowlist check in extensions/voice-call/src/manager.ts used suffix-based matching and accepted empty caller IDs after normalization.

This allowed two bypasses:

  1. Missing/empty from values normalized to an empty string, which caused the allowlist predicate to evaluate as allowed.
  2. Suffix-based matching meant any caller number whose digits ended with an allowlisted number would be accepted.

Proof Of Concept

  1. Configure the voice-call extension with inboundPolicy: allowlist and allowFrom: ["+15550001234"].
  2. Place/trigger an inbound call with missing/empty caller ID (provider-dependent; for example anonymous/restricted caller). The call is accepted.
  3. Place a call from a number whose E.164 digits end with 15550001234 (for example +99915550001234). The call is accepted.

Impact

Only operators who install/enable the optional voice-call extension and use inboundPolicy=allowlist or pairing could have inbound access controls bypassed, potentially allowing unauthorized callers to reach auto-response and tool execution.

Fix

The fix hardens inbound policy handling:

  • Reject inbound calls when caller ID is missing.
  • Require strict equality when comparing normalized caller IDs against the allowlist (no suffix/prefix matching).
  • Add regression tests for missing caller ID, anonymous caller ID, and suffix-collision cases.

Fix commit(s):

  • f8dfd034f5d9235c5485f492a9e4ccc114e97fdb

Thanks @simecek for reporting.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.2.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-28446"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T21:36:34Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-03-05T22:16:16Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nAn authentication bypass in the optional `voice-call` extension/plugin allowed unapproved or anonymous callers to reach the voice-call agent when inbound policy was set to `allowlist` or `pairing`.\n\nDeployments that do not install/enable the `voice-call` extension are not affected.\n\n### Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- `openclaw` (npm): `\u003c= 2026.2.1`\n- Fixed in: `\u003e= 2026.2.2`\n\n### Details\n\nIn affected versions (for example `2026.2.1`), the inbound allowlist check in `extensions/voice-call/src/manager.ts` used suffix-based matching and accepted empty caller IDs after normalization.\n\nThis allowed two bypasses:\n\n1. Missing/empty `from` values normalized to an empty string, which caused the allowlist predicate to evaluate as allowed.\n2. Suffix-based matching meant any caller number whose digits ended with an allowlisted number would be accepted.\n\n### Proof Of Concept\n\n1. Configure the voice-call extension with `inboundPolicy: allowlist` and `allowFrom: [\"+15550001234\"]`.\n2. Place/trigger an inbound call with missing/empty caller ID (provider-dependent; for example anonymous/restricted caller). The call is accepted.\n3. Place a call from a number whose E.164 digits end with `15550001234` (for example `+99915550001234`). The call is accepted.\n\n### Impact\n\nOnly operators who install/enable the optional `voice-call` extension and use `inboundPolicy=allowlist` or `pairing` could have inbound access controls bypassed, potentially allowing unauthorized callers to reach auto-response and tool execution.\n\n### Fix\n\nThe fix hardens inbound policy handling:\n\n- Reject inbound calls when caller ID is missing.\n- Require strict equality when comparing normalized caller IDs against the allowlist (no suffix/prefix matching).\n- Add regression tests for missing caller ID, anonymous caller ID, and suffix-collision cases.\n\nFix commit(s):\n\n- `f8dfd034f5d9235c5485f492a9e4ccc114e97fdb`\n\nThanks @simecek for reporting.",
  "id": "GHSA-4rj2-gpmh-qq5x",
  "modified": "2026-03-10T22:21:59Z",
  "published": "2026-02-17T21:36:34Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-4rj2-gpmh-qq5x"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28446"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/f8dfd034f5d9235c5485f492a9e4ccc114e97fdb"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.2.2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-inbound-allowlist-policy-bypass-in-voice-call-extension-via-empty-caller-id"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaw has an inbound allowlist policy bypass in voice-call extension (empty caller ID + suffix matching)"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Events included in the timeline

Loading timeline…


    Loading…

    Loading…

    Loading…

    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.