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"
}
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.