Skip to content

OpenClaw: Discord voice transcript owner-flag omission could expose owner-only tools in mixed-trust channels

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 3, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Apr 24, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

<= 2026.3.1

Patched versions

2026.3.2

Description

Summary

In openclaw@2026.3.1, the Discord voice transcript path called agentCommand(...) without senderIsOwner, and agentCommand defaults missing senderIsOwner to true.

This could allow a non-owner voice participant in the same channel to reach owner-only tool surfaces (gateway, cron) during voice transcript turns.

Security model note

OpenClaw’s documented trust model is a personal assistant model (one trusted operator), not an adversarial multi-user boundary.

  • OpenClaw does not treat one shared gateway/chat surface as a hardened per-user auth boundary.
  • Mixed-trust deployments (mutually untrusted users sharing one gateway/channel) are outside recommended deployment boundaries.

This report is treated as a valid hardening/authorization bug because owner-only tool policy should still be applied consistently across chat-driven turns, including Discord voice transcript ingress.

Details

Relevant path:

  1. Voice transcript run omitted senderIsOwner in Discord voice manager.
  2. Missing senderIsOwner defaulted to true in agentCommand.
  3. Owner-only tool policy is keyed on senderIsOwner.
  4. gateway and cron are owner-only tools.

Impact

  • Affects deployments where Discord voice is enabled and the bot is present in channels with non-owner participants.
  • No gateway-auth boundary bypass was required.
  • Practical risk depends strongly on whether the deployment is single-trust (recommended) or mixed-trust (not recommended).

Severity rationale

Downgraded from high to medium to align with OpenClaw’s trust model and deployment assumptions:

  • Requires participation in the same voice environment as the trusted operator workflow.
  • Requires Discord voice path conditions (joined voice channel + transcript flow).
  • Does not introduce a new cross-gateway or unauthenticated boundary bypass.

Remediation

  • Always pass explicit senderIsOwner from Discord voice transcript ingress.
  • Fail closed (false) when owner status is unknown for non-local/chat ingress paths.
  • Keep regression tests that verify owner/non-owner voice speaker handling.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected versions: <= 2026.3.1
  • Patched versions: >= 2026.3.2 (released)

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Mar 3, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 3, 2026
Reviewed Mar 3, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 19, 2026
Last updated Apr 24, 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 Network
Attack Complexity High
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required Low
User interaction Active
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity High
Availability Low
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:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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.
(10th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor. 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-2026-32035

GHSA ID

GHSA-wpg9-4g4v-f9rc

Source code

Credits

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