Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-28469 is a high-severity Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 22th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.14 are affected by CVE-2026-28469, a webhook routing vulnerability in the Google Chat monitor component. The issue arises from cross-account policy context misrouting when multiple webhook targets share the same HTTP path. It exploits first-match request verification semantics, enabling inbound webhook events to be processed under incorrect account contexts and bypassing intended allowlists and session policies. The vulnerability is rated with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N) and is associated with CWE-639 (Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key).
Unauthenticated attackers with network access can exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted webhook requests to the affected Google Chat monitor endpoint. Due to the low attack complexity and lack of required privileges or user interaction, exploitation involves targeting shared HTTP paths across accounts. Successful exploitation allows attackers to process webhook events in the context of a different account, achieving integrity impacts such as unauthorized policy bypasses without affecting confidentiality or availability.
Mitigation is addressed in OpenClaw version 2026.2.14 and later, as detailed in the project's GitHub commit (61d59a802869177d9cef52204767cd83357ab79e). Security advisories from GitHub (GHSA-rq6g-px6m-c248) and VulnCheck provide further guidance on the issue and recommend upgrading to patched versions to resolve the routing ambiguity.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9915
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.14 contain a webhook routing vulnerability in the Google Chat monitor component that allows cross-account policy context misrouting when multiple webhook targets share the same HTTP path. Attackers can exploit first-match request verification semantics to process…
more
inbound webhook events under incorrect account contexts, bypassing intended allowlists and session policies.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforcing approved authorizations on every access request structurally stops a user-controlled key from reaching another user's data.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions on each request blocks unauthorized key-driven access.
Least-privilege restrictions limit the scope of data reachable even if a key check is bypassed.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.
Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect missing authorization checks but does not prevent the weakness in production.
Information access restriction explicitly enforces that users may only retrieve data they are authorized to see, directly addressing user-controlled key bypass.
Access control policy directly requires enforcement of authorization rules that prevent unauthorized access via manipulated keys.
Managing access rights includes ensuring users can only access their own records and not bypass authorization by altering identifiers.
Privileged access rights control restricts what data each user may access, mitigating direct object reference attacks.
Secure development lifecycle includes authorization design but does not itself implement runtime access checks.