GHSA-CHM2-M3W2-WCXM

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 22:56 – Updated: 2026-02-17 22:56
VLAI?
Summary
OpenClaw Google Chat spoofing access with allowlist authorized mutable email principal despite sender-ID mismatch
Details

Summary

Google Chat allowlisting supports matching by sender email in addition to immutable sender resource name (users/<id>). This weakens identity binding if a deployment assumes allowlists are strictly keyed by immutable principals.

Affected Packages / Versions

(As of 2026-02-14; based on latest published npm versions) - openclaw (npm): <= 2026.2.13 - clawdbot (npm): <= 2026.1.24-3

Details

Affected component: - extensions/googlechat/src/monitor.ts

The allowFrom checks accept: - Immutable sender id (users/<id>) - Raw email (alice@example.com) for usability

Historically, users/<email> was also treated as an email allowlist entry. This is now deprecated because it looks like an immutable ID but is actually a mutable principal.

Security Triage (2026-02-14)

Severity: Low

Rationale: - Requests are authenticated as coming from Google Chat (token verification), so this is not a generic unauthenticated spoofing vector. - A realistic exploit generally requires Google Workspace / IdP administrative control over identity lifecycle (e.g. reassigning an email address to a different underlying account) to obtain the same email with a different users/<id>. - With that level of access, the attacker typically has broader compromise paths.

We still treat it as a valid defense-in-depth report because accepting mutable principals in authorization decisions can increase risk in chained-failure scenarios.

Remediation / Behavior Changes

Goal: preserve usability while reducing footguns. - Raw email allowlists remain supported. - users/<email> is deprecated and treated as a user id, not as an email allowlist. - Documentation recommends users/<id> when strict immutable binding is required.

Fix Commit(s)

  • c8424bf29a921e25663b29f308640b3d91a49432 (PR #16243)

Thanks @vincentkoc for reporting.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.2.14"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "clawdbot"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "last_affected": "2026.1.24-3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-290",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T22:56:39Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\nGoogle Chat allowlisting supports matching by sender email in addition to immutable sender resource name (`users/\u003cid\u003e`). This weakens identity binding if a deployment assumes allowlists are strictly keyed by immutable principals.\n\n### Affected Packages / Versions\n(As of 2026-02-14; based on latest published npm versions)\n- `openclaw` (npm): `\u003c= 2026.2.13`\n- `clawdbot` (npm): `\u003c= 2026.1.24-3`\n\n### Details\nAffected component:\n- `extensions/googlechat/src/monitor.ts`\n\nThe `allowFrom` checks accept:\n- Immutable sender id (`users/\u003cid\u003e`)\n- Raw email (`alice@example.com`) for usability\n\nHistorically, `users/\u003cemail\u003e` was also treated as an email allowlist entry. This is now deprecated because it looks like an immutable ID but is actually a mutable principal.\n\n### Security Triage (2026-02-14)\nSeverity: **Low**\n\nRationale:\n- Requests are authenticated as coming from Google Chat (token verification), so this is not a generic unauthenticated spoofing vector.\n- A realistic exploit generally requires **Google Workspace / IdP administrative control** over identity lifecycle (e.g. reassigning an email address to a different underlying account) to obtain the same email with a different `users/\u003cid\u003e`.\n- With that level of access, the attacker typically has broader compromise paths.\n\nWe still treat it as a valid defense-in-depth report because accepting mutable principals in authorization decisions can increase risk in chained-failure scenarios.\n\n### Remediation / Behavior Changes\nGoal: preserve usability while reducing footguns.\n- Raw email allowlists remain supported.\n- `users/\u003cemail\u003e` is deprecated and treated as a **user id**, not as an email allowlist.\n- Documentation recommends `users/\u003cid\u003e` when strict immutable binding is required.\n\n### Fix Commit(s)\n- `c8424bf29a921e25663b29f308640b3d91a49432` (PR #16243)\n\nThanks @vincentkoc for reporting.",
  "id": "GHSA-chm2-m3w2-wcxm",
  "modified": "2026-02-17T22:56:39Z",
  "published": "2026-02-17T22:56:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-chm2-m3w2-wcxm"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/16243"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/c8424bf29a921e25663b29f308640b3d91a49432"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.2.14"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaw Google Chat spoofing access with allowlist authorized mutable email principal despite sender-ID mismatch"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

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.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…