PT-2026-31840 · Npm · Openclaw

Published

2026-03-30

·

Updated

2026-03-30

CVSS v3.1

6.5

Medium

VectorAV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.
Title Mutating internal /allowlist chat commands missed operator.admin scope enforcement
CWE CWE-862 Missing Authorization
CVSS v3.1 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N Base score: 6.5 (Medium)
Severity Assessment Medium. This is a real authorization flaw in OpenClaw’s internal control plane. The issue does not require host access, trusted local state tampering, or multi-tenant assumptions, but exploitation does require an already authenticated internal Gateway caller with operator.write.
Impact An authenticated internal Gateway caller limited to operator.write can perform state-changing /allowlist actions without operator.admin, even though comparable mutating internal chat commands already require operator.admin. The reachable effects are persistent changes to config-backed allowFrom entries and pairing-store-backed allowlist entries.
This is not a semantic-modeling complaint and not a generic “trusted operator can do things” claim. It is a missing authorization check inside OpenClaw’s own internal scope model, where peer mutating command surfaces already distinguish operator.write from operator.admin.
Affected Component Verified against the latest published GitHub release tag v2026.3.23 (ccfeecb6887cd97937e33a71877ad512741e82b2), published 2026-03-23T23:15:50Z.
Exact vulnerable path on the shipped tag:
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:251-254
  • /allowlist authorization uses only rejectUnauthorizedCommand(...).
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:386-524
  • mutating config and pairing-store writes happen here, but there is no requireGatewayClientScopeForInternalChannel(..., operator.admin, ...).
Reachability and scope model:
  • src/gateway/method-scopes.ts:94-109
  • chat.send is a write-scoped method.
  • src/gateway/server.chat.gateway-server-chat.test.ts:539-559
  • existing runtime coverage proves chat.send routes slash commands without an agent run.
  • src/auto-reply/command-auth.ts:574-577
  • internal callers become senderIsOwner only when GatewayClientScopes includes operator.admin.
Comparable internal mutating command paths already enforce operator.admin:
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-config.ts:64-73
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-mcp.ts:89-96
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-plugins.ts:387-394
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-acp.ts:98-106
Version history:
  • Introduced by commit 555b2578a8cc6e1b93f717496935ead97bfbed8b (feat: add /allowlist command)
  • Earliest released affected tag found: v2026.1.20
  • Latest released affected tag verified: v2026.3.23
Technical Reproduction
  1. Check out the shipped release tag v2026.3.23.
  2. Use an internal command context with:
  • Provider = "webchat"
  • Surface = "webchat"
  • GatewayClientScopes = ["operator.write"]
  • params.command.channel = "webchat"
  1. Route a slash command through chat.send.
  2. Execute either of these mutating commands:
  • /allowlist add dm channel=telegram 789
  • /allowlist add dm --store channel=telegram 789
  1. Confirm the command context is authorized but not owner-equivalent:
  • isAuthorizedSender === true
  • senderIsOwner === false
  1. Observe that the commands still succeed and perform persistent writes.
Demonstrated Impact The vulnerable handler performs real state mutation for a low-scope internal caller:
  • Config-backed mutation path:
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:398-503
  • reads the config snapshot, applies the edit, validates, and writes the updated config to disk.
  • Store-backed mutation path:
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:479-485
  • src/auto-reply/reply/commands-allowlist.ts:513-518
  • updates the pairing-store allowlist without any admin-scope gate.
The result is successful persistence, not just a misleading success message.
Environment
  • Product: OpenClaw
  • Verified shipped tag: v2026.3.23
  • Shipped tag commit: ccfeecb6887cd97937e33a71877ad512741e82b2
  • Published GitHub release time: 2026-03-23T23:15:50Z
  • Verification date: 2026-03-24
Duplicate Check This is not a duplicate of:
  • GHSA-pjvx-rx66-r3fg
  • that advisory covered cross-account scoping in /allowlist ... --store, not missing internal operator.admin enforcement.
  • GHSA-hfpr-jhpq-x4rm
  • that advisory covered /config writes through chat.send, not /allowlist.
  • GHSA-3w6x-gv34-mqpf
  • same authorization class, but different command path (/acp, not /allowlist).
In Scope Check This report is in scope under SECURITY.md because:
  • it does not rely on adversarial operators sharing one gateway host or config;
  • it does not target the HTTP compatibility endpoints that SECURITY.md explicitly treats as full operator-access surfaces;
  • it demonstrates a real authorization mismatch inside OpenClaw’s own internal control-plane scope model (operator.write vs operator.admin);
  • peer mutating internal chat commands already enforce operator.admin, so this is not a request for a new boundary but a missing check on an existing one.
This is therefore a concrete authorization bug, not a trusted-operator hardening suggestion.
Remediation Advice
  1. Add requireGatewayClientScopeForInternalChannel(..., allowedScopes: ["operator.admin"], ...) to the mutating internal /allowlist paths.
  2. Add regression coverage for both mutation modes:
  • internal operator.write must be rejected;
  • internal operator.admin must be allowed.
  1. Cover both config-backed and store-backed writes.
  2. Audit other mutating internal chat-command paths for the same missing-scope pattern.

Fix

Missing Authorization

Found an issue in the description? Have something to add? Feel free to write us 👾
dbugs@ptsecurity.com

Weakness Enumeration

CWE-862

Related Identifiers

GHSA-VQVG-86CC-CG83

Affected Products

Openclaw