VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-100579: OpenClaw (npm package 'openclaw') before 2026.7.1 incorrectly trusts requester provenance in

Affects openclawSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High : upgrade to 2026.7.1 soon.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2026.7.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 10 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-6462-h5cx-j55p

What to do

Upgrade openclaw to 2026.7.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmopenclaw`pkg:npm/openclaw`Other threats	Affected <2026.7.1	Fixed in 2026.7.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

A fix is available in OpenClaw version 2026.7.1 and should be applied to remediate this vulnerability. Until the update can be applied, it is recommended to restrict the use of message.action to administrators only and disable any sensitive channel actions that depend on requester identity to reduce the risk of exploitation.

Description

OpenClaw (npm package 'openclaw') before 2026.7.1 incorrectly trusts requester provenance in message.action. In identity-bearing Gateway deployments (authentication modes that honor caller identity and narrower operator scopes), a write-scoped caller can supply another sender's identifier to the channel authorization checks and invoke a channel action under that spoofed requester identity, reaching operations the channel adapter would have denied to the real caller. Practical impact depends on the enabled channel, the action, and the target account's permissions. Shared-secret token and password callers are full trusted operators under OpenClaw's security model and are out of scope. The issue is fixed in 2026.7.1; as a workaround, restrict message.action to administrators and disable sensitive channel actions that rely on requester identity.

Impact

An attacker with write-scoped permissions can impersonate other users by spoofing their identity in channel authorization checks, potentially performing unauthorized actions that the real caller would be denied. The severity is high due to the potential for privilege escalation within the affected system. The impact varies based on the specific channel enabled, the action invoked, and the permissions of the targeted account. Trusted authentication methods using shared-secret tokens or passwords are not affected.

Summary

The OpenClaw npm package before version 2026.7.1 has a security flaw where it improperly trusts the provenance of the requester in the message.action field. In deployments that honor caller identity and enforce operator scopes, a write-scoped caller can supply another user's identifier to channel authorization checks, effectively spoofing that identity. This enables the caller to perform channel actions that would otherwise be denied to them. The vulnerability is addressed in version 2026.7.1. As a workaround, restricting message.action usage to administrators and disabling sensitive channel actions that rely on requester identity can mitigate the risk.

CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Sep 2026, 04:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats