GHSA-MQPW-46FH-299H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 21:39 – Updated: 2026-03-06 01:02Summary
What this means (plain language)
If you give a client “chat/write” access to the gateway (operator.write) but you do not intend to let that client approve exec requests (operator.approvals), affected versions could still let that client approve/deny a pending exec approval by sending the /approve chat command.
This is mainly relevant for shared or multi-client setups where different tokens are intentionally scoped differently. Single-operator installs are typically less impacted.
Technical summary
A gateway client authenticated with a device token scoped only to operator.write (without operator.approvals) could approve/deny pending exec approval requests by sending a chat message containing the built-in /approve command.
exec.approval.resolve is correctly scoped to operator.approvals for direct RPC calls, but the /approve command path invoked it via an internal privileged gateway client.
Affected Packages / Versions
openclaw(npm):< 2026.2.2
Fix
- Fixed in
openclaw2026.2.2. - Fix commit(s):
efe2a464afcff55bb5a95b959e6bd9ec0fef086e. - Change: when
/approveis invoked from gateway clients (webchat/internal channel), it now requires the requesting client to haveoperator.approvals(oroperator.admin).
Workarounds
- Upgrade to
openclaw >= 2026.2.2. - If you cannot upgrade: avoid issuing write-only device tokens to untrusted clients; disable text commands (
commands.text=false) or restrict access to the webchat/control UI.
References
- Fix:
src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.ts - Coverage:
src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.test.ts
Release Process Note
This advisory is kept in draft; once the fixed npm versions are available, it can be published without further edits.
Thanks @yueyueL for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.2.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28473"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-269",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T21:39:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-05T22:16:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n### What this means (plain language)\n\nIf you give a client \u201cchat/write\u201d access to the gateway (`operator.write`) but you do not intend to let that client approve exec requests (`operator.approvals`), affected versions could still let that client approve/deny a pending exec approval by sending the `/approve` chat command.\n\nThis is mainly relevant for shared or multi-client setups where different tokens are intentionally scoped differently. Single-operator installs are typically less impacted.\n\n### Technical summary\n\nA gateway client authenticated with a device token scoped only to `operator.write` (without `operator.approvals`) could approve/deny pending exec approval requests by sending a chat message containing the built-in `/approve` command.\n\n`exec.approval.resolve` is correctly scoped to `operator.approvals` for direct RPC calls, but the `/approve` command path invoked it via an internal privileged gateway client.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- `openclaw` (npm): `\u003c 2026.2.2`\n\n## Fix\n\n- Fixed in `openclaw` `2026.2.2`.\n- Fix commit(s): `efe2a464afcff55bb5a95b959e6bd9ec0fef086e`.\n- Change: when `/approve` is invoked from gateway clients (webchat/internal channel), it now requires the requesting client to have `operator.approvals` (or `operator.admin`).\n\n## Workarounds\n\n- Upgrade to `openclaw \u003e= 2026.2.2`.\n- If you cannot upgrade: avoid issuing write-only device tokens to untrusted clients; disable text commands (`commands.text=false`) or restrict access to the webchat/control UI.\n\n## References\n\n- Fix: `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.ts`\n- Coverage: `src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.test.ts`\n\n## Release Process Note\n\nThis advisory is kept in draft; once the fixed npm versions are available, it can be published without further edits.\n\nThanks @yueyueL for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h",
"modified": "2026-03-06T01:02:19Z",
"published": "2026-02-17T21:39:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28473"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/efe2a464afcff55bb5a95b959e6bd9ec0fef086e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-authorization-bypass-via-approve-chat-command"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw authorization bypass: operator.write can resolve exec approvals via chat.send -\u003e /approve"
}
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.