GHSA-8JHH-JCQG-MJ5P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 15:47 – Updated: 2026-03-13 15:48Summary
In affected versions of openclaw, channel-initiated config mutations were authorized against the originating account's configWrites policy but did not consistently re-check the targeted account scope. An authorized sender on one account could mutate protected sibling-account configuration when the target account had configWrites: false.
Impact
This is an account-scoped policy bypass inside a single gateway deployment. Channel commands such as /config set channels.<provider>.accounts.<id>... and config-backed /allowlist ... --config --account <id> could modify protected sibling-account configuration.
Affected Packages and Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Affected versions:
<= 2026.3.8 - Fixed in:
2026.3.11
Technical Details
The mutation path validated the origin account scope but did not consistently authorize every resolved target scope. Ambiguous collection and root writes under channels and channels.<provider>.accounts could therefore reach protected account configuration from channel command surfaces.
Fix
OpenClaw now authorizes config mutations against both the origin scope and each resolved target scope, and it rejects ambiguous root and collection writes from channel commands unless the caller is an internal gateway client with operator.admin. The fix shipped in openclaw@2026.3.11.
Workarounds
Upgrade to 2026.3.11 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.3.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-639",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-13T15:47:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nIn affected versions of `openclaw`, channel-initiated config mutations were authorized against the originating account\u0027s `configWrites` policy but did not consistently re-check the targeted account scope. An authorized sender on one account could mutate protected sibling-account configuration when the target account had `configWrites: false`.\n\n## Impact\nThis is an account-scoped policy bypass inside a single gateway deployment. Channel commands such as `/config set channels.\u003cprovider\u003e.accounts.\u003cid\u003e...` and config-backed `/allowlist ... --config --account \u003cid\u003e` could modify protected sibling-account configuration.\n\n## Affected Packages and Versions\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected versions: `\u003c= 2026.3.8`\n- Fixed in: `2026.3.11`\n\n## Technical Details\nThe mutation path validated the origin account scope but did not consistently authorize every resolved target scope. Ambiguous collection and root writes under `channels` and `channels.\u003cprovider\u003e.accounts` could therefore reach protected account configuration from channel command surfaces.\n\n## Fix\nOpenClaw now authorizes config mutations against both the origin scope and each resolved target scope, and it rejects ambiguous root and collection writes from channel commands unless the caller is an internal gateway client with `operator.admin`. The fix shipped in `openclaw@2026.3.11`.\n\n## Workarounds\nUpgrade to `2026.3.11` or later.",
"id": "GHSA-8jhh-jcqg-mj5p",
"modified": "2026-03-13T15:48:00Z",
"published": "2026-03-13T15:47:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-8jhh-jcqg-mj5p"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.3.11"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Channel commands could bypass account-scoped `configWrites` restrictions"
}
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.
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
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.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
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.