Skip to content

OpenClaw: Sandboxed /acp spawn requests could initialize host ACP sessions

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 8, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Mar 30, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

<= 2026.3.2

Patched versions

2026.3.7

Description

Summary

Sandboxed requester sessions could reach host-side ACP session initialization through /acp spawn.

OpenClaw already blocked sessions_spawn({ runtime: "acp" }) from sandboxed sessions, but the slash-command path initialized ACP directly without applying the same host-runtime guard first.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • npm package: openclaw
  • Affected versions: <= 2026.3.2
  • Patched version: >= 2026.3.7

Details

ACP sessions run on the host, not inside the OpenClaw sandbox. The direct ACP spawn path in src/agents/acp-spawn.ts already denied sandboxed requesters, but /acp spawn in src/auto-reply/reply/commands-acp/lifecycle.ts called initializeSession(...) without first applying the same restriction.

In affected versions, an already authorized sender in a sandboxed session could use /acp spawn to cross from sandboxed chat context into host-side ACP runtime initialization when ACP was enabled and a backend was available.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 61000b8e4ded919ca1a825d4700db4cb3fdc56e3

Fix Details

The fix introduced a shared ACP runtime-policy guard in src/agents/acp-spawn.ts and reused it from the /acp spawn handler in src/auto-reply/reply/commands-acp/lifecycle.ts before any ACP backend initialization. Regression coverage was added in src/auto-reply/reply/commands-acp.test.ts to prove sandboxed /acp spawn requests are rejected early, while existing ACP spawn behavior for non-sandboxed sessions remains unchanged.

Release Process Note

Patched version is pre-set to 2026.3.7 so the advisory can be published once that npm release is available.

Thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Mar 8, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 9, 2026
Reviewed Mar 9, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 23, 2026
Last updated Mar 30, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(2nd percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. Learn more on MITRE.

Protection Mechanism Failure

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. Learn more on MITRE.

Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-27646

GHSA ID

GHSA-9q36-67vc-rrwg

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.