BREW-OPENCLAW-CLI-CVE-20… (GHSA-68F8-9MHJ-H2MP)

Vulnerability from osv_homebrew – Published: 2026-08-13 17:21 – Updated: 2026-11-10 09:00 – Source website
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaw has a Gateway HTTP /v1/models Route Bypasses Operator Read Scope
Details

Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.

Summary

The OpenAI-compatible HTTP endpoint /v1/models accepts bearer auth but does not enforce operator method scopes.

In contrast, the WebSocket RPC path enforces operator.read for models.list.

A caller connected with operator.approvals (no read scope) is rejected for models.list (missing scope: operator.read) but can still enumerate model metadata through HTTP /v1/models.

Confirmed on current main at commit 06de515b6c42816b62ec752e1c221cab67b38501.

Details

The WS control-plane path enforces role/scope checks centrally before dispatching methods. For non-admin operators, this includes required method scopes such as operator.read for models.list.

The HTTP compatibility path for /v1/models performs bearer authorization and then returns model metadata; it does not apply an equivalent scope check.

As reproduced, a caller with only operator.approvals can:

  1. connect successfully,
  2. fail models.list over WS with missing scope: operator.read,
  3. fetch /v1/models over HTTP with status 200 and model data.

This is a cross-surface authorization inconsistency where the stricter WS policy can be bypassed via HTTP.

Impact

  • Callers lacking operator.read can still enumerate gateway model metadata through HTTP compatibility routes.
  • Breaks scope model consistency between WS RPC and HTTP surfaces.
  • Weakens least-privilege expectations for operators granted non-read scopes.

Patch Suggestion

1) Enforce read scope on /v1/models routes

Apply a scope gate equivalent to models.list before serving /v1/models or /v1/models/:id.

2) Reuse centralized scope-authorization helper for HTTP compatibility endpoints

Use the same operator scope logic used by WS dispatch (authorizeOperatorScopesForMethod(...)) to prevent policy drift.

3) Add regression tests

Keep this PoC and add explicit negative/positive controls:

  • operator.approvals without read is rejected on HTTP /v1/models.
  • operator.read is accepted on both WS models.list and HTTP /v1/models.

Credit

Reported by @zpbrent.

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
References
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "fix": "bump",
        "range_state": "fixed",
        "upstream_fixed_in": "2026.3.24"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Homebrew",
        "name": "openclaw-cli",
        "purl": "pkg:brew/openclaw-cli"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2026.1.29"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.3.24"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "confidence": "high",
    "source": "matched",
    "strategy": "registry",
    "upstream_evidence": [
      {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "key": "pkg:npm/openclaw@2026.11.2",
        "name": "openclaw",
        "strategy": "registry",
        "subject_version": "2026.11.2"
      }
    ]
  },
  "details": "\u003e Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.\n\n## Summary\n\nThe OpenAI-compatible HTTP endpoint `/v1/models` accepts bearer auth but does not enforce operator method scopes.\n\nIn contrast, the WebSocket RPC path enforces `operator.read` for `models.list`.\n\nA caller connected with `operator.approvals` (no read scope) is rejected for `models.list` (`missing scope: operator.read`) but can still enumerate model metadata through HTTP `/v1/models`.\n\nConfirmed on current `main` at commit `06de515b6c42816b62ec752e1c221cab67b38501`.\n\n## Details\n\nThe WS control-plane path enforces role/scope checks centrally before dispatching methods. For non-admin operators, this includes required method scopes such as `operator.read` for `models.list`.\n\nThe HTTP compatibility path for `/v1/models` performs bearer authorization and then returns model metadata; it does not apply an equivalent scope check.\n\nAs reproduced, a caller with only `operator.approvals` can:\n\n1. connect successfully,\n2. fail `models.list` over WS with `missing scope: operator.read`,\n3. fetch `/v1/models` over HTTP with status 200 and model data.\n\nThis is a cross-surface authorization inconsistency where the stricter WS policy can be bypassed via HTTP.\n\n## Impact\n\n- Callers lacking `operator.read` can still enumerate gateway model metadata through HTTP compatibility routes.\n- Breaks scope model consistency between WS RPC and HTTP surfaces.\n- Weakens least-privilege expectations for operators granted non-read scopes.\n\n## Patch Suggestion\n\n### 1) Enforce read scope on `/v1/models` routes\n\nApply a scope gate equivalent to `models.list` before serving `/v1/models` or `/v1/models/:id`.\n\n### 2) Reuse centralized scope-authorization helper for HTTP compatibility endpoints\n\nUse the same operator scope logic used by WS dispatch (`authorizeOperatorScopesForMethod(...)`) to prevent policy drift.\n\n### 3) Add regression tests\n\nKeep this PoC and add explicit negative/positive controls:\n\n- `operator.approvals` without read is rejected on HTTP `/v1/models`.\n- `operator.read` is accepted on both WS `models.list` and HTTP `/v1/models`.\n\n## Credit\n\nReported by @zpbrent.",
  "id": "BREW-openclaw-cli-CVE-2026-35619",
  "modified": "2026-11-10T09:00:02Z",
  "published": "2026-08-13T17:21:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-68f8-9mhj-h2mp"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35619"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/06de515b6c42816b62ec752e1c221cab67b38501"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-authorization-bypass-via-http-v1-models-endpoint"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.7.3",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaw has a Gateway HTTP /v1/models Route Bypasses Operator Read Scope",
  "upstream": [
    "GHSA-68f8-9mhj-h2mp",
    "CVE-2026-35619"
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.

Loading timeline…




    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.