Skip to content

OpenClaw has a Gateway HTTP /v1/models Route Bypasses Operator Read Scope

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 27, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Apr 10, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

<= 2026.3.23

Patched versions

2026.3.24

Description

Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.

Summary

The OpenAI-compatible HTTP endpoint /v1/models accepts bearer auth but does not enforce operator method scopes.

In contrast, the WebSocket RPC path enforces operator.read for models.list.

A caller connected with operator.approvals (no read scope) is rejected for models.list (missing scope: operator.read) but can still enumerate model metadata through HTTP /v1/models.

Confirmed on current main at commit 06de515b6c42816b62ec752e1c221cab67b38501.

Details

The WS control-plane path enforces role/scope checks centrally before dispatching methods. For non-admin operators, this includes required method scopes such as operator.read for models.list.

The HTTP compatibility path for /v1/models performs bearer authorization and then returns model metadata; it does not apply an equivalent scope check.

As reproduced, a caller with only operator.approvals can:

  1. connect successfully,
  2. fail models.list over WS with missing scope: operator.read,
  3. fetch /v1/models over HTTP with status 200 and model data.

This is a cross-surface authorization inconsistency where the stricter WS policy can be bypassed via HTTP.

Impact

  • Callers lacking operator.read can still enumerate gateway model metadata through HTTP compatibility routes.
  • Breaks scope model consistency between WS RPC and HTTP surfaces.
  • Weakens least-privilege expectations for operators granted non-read scopes.

Patch Suggestion

1) Enforce read scope on /v1/models routes

Apply a scope gate equivalent to models.list before serving /v1/models or /v1/models/:id.

2) Reuse centralized scope-authorization helper for HTTP compatibility endpoints

Use the same operator scope logic used by WS dispatch (authorizeOperatorScopesForMethod(...)) to prevent policy drift.

3) Add regression tests

Keep this PoC and add explicit negative/positive controls:

  • operator.approvals without read is rejected on HTTP /v1/models.
  • operator.read is accepted on both WS models.list and HTTP /v1/models.

Credit

Reported by @zpbrent.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Mar 27, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 30, 2026
Reviewed Mar 30, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Apr 10, 2026
Last updated Apr 10, 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 Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity None
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:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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.
(11th 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.

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-2026-35619

GHSA ID

GHSA-68f8-9mhj-h2mp

Source code

Credits

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