How severe is GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h?

GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h has a CVSS score of 7.2/10, rated HIGH. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h?

GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h affects the following packages: openclaw (npm). Ecosystems affected: npm.

How do I fix GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h?

Update openclaw to 2026.2.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h in my npm dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for openclaw, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.

Is GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h?

GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.3%, placing it in the 26th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h?

GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h is classified as CWE-863 (CWE-863). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h was published on February 17, 2026 and was last updated on March 6, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

📦

📦 npm

Not in CISA KEV

HIGH severity

OpenClaw authorization bypass: operator.write can resolve exec approvals via chat.send -> /approveGHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h

HIGHFix: openclaw/openclaw@efe2a46

GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h is a high-severity (CVSS 7.2) CWE-863 vulnerability in openclaw. A fix is available for openclaw — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-28473

Published

Feb 17, 2026

Updated

Mar 6, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Nov 8, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs26th percentile — riskier than 26% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

Where this sits among everything scored

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.

133other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream

openclawnpm

2.9Mdownloads / week

Description

Summary

What this means (plain language)

If you give a client “chat/write” access to the gateway (operator.write) but you do not intend to let that client approve exec requests (operator.approvals), affected versions could still let that client approve/deny a pending exec approval by sending the /approve chat command.

This is mainly relevant for shared or multi-client setups where different tokens are intentionally scoped differently. Single-operator installs are typically less impacted.

Technical summary

A gateway client authenticated with a device token scoped only to operator.write (without operator.approvals) could approve/deny pending exec approval requests by sending a chat message containing the built-in /approve command.

exec.approval.resolve is correctly scoped to operator.approvals for direct RPC calls, but the /approve command path invoked it via an internal privileged gateway client.

Affected Packages / Versions

openclaw (npm): < 2026.2.2

Fix

Fixed in openclaw 2026.2.2.
Fix commit(s): efe2a464afcff55bb5a95b959e6bd9ec0fef086e.
Change: when /approve is invoked from gateway clients (webchat/internal channel), it now requires the requesting client to have operator.approvals (or operator.admin).

Workarounds

Upgrade to openclaw >= 2026.2.2.
If you cannot upgrade: avoid issuing write-only device tokens to untrusted clients; disable text commands (commands.text=false) or restrict access to the webchat/control UI.

References

Fix: src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.ts
Coverage: src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.test.ts

Release Process Note

This advisory is kept in draft; once the fixed npm versions are available, it can be published without further edits.

Thanks @yueyueL for reporting.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
📦npm	`openclaw`	all versions	2026.2.2`npm install openclaw@2026.2.2`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

openclawopenclaw

< 2026.2.2

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for openclaw, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update openclaw to 2026.2.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-mqpw-46fh-299h is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary ### What this means (plain language) If you give a client “chat/write” access to the gateway (`operator.write`) but you do not intend to let that client approve exec requests (`operator.approvals`), affected versions could still let that client approve/deny a pending exec approval by sending the `/approve` chat command. This is mainly relevant for shared or multi-client setups where different tokens are intentionally scoped differently. Single-operator installs are typically less impacted. ### Technical summary A gateway client authenticated with a device token scoped only to `