CVE-2026-53809: OpenClaw: Embedded runner policy could be confused by provider aliases
OpenClaw 2026.4.24 and earlier compared the embedded runner's tool policy against provider aliases instead of the canonical provider identity. A request that used an alias could select bundled tools the provider policy was meant to restrict. Medium severity. Fixed in openclaw 2026.4.25.
Published Jul 2, 2026 · Analysis Oct 25, 2026
What an attacker can do
The embedded runner applies a tool policy per model provider. In affected versions, the policy lookup used the name in the request. When the request used an alias for a provider, the policy was compared with the alias and not with the canonical provider, so a rule written for the canonical name did not match. The request then reached bundled tools outside the intended policy. This is incorrect authorization (CWE-863).
The attacker needs low privileges and local reach to the runner, as the vectors state. They must be able to choose or influence the provider name in a request, for example through configuration or a request parameter. The gain is limited: the CVSS vectors score low integrity impact and no confidentiality or availability impact. The practical result is access to bundled tools that policy meant to deny for that provider.
The advisory keeps the trusted-operator model unchanged and says real impact depends on the configuration and on whether lower-trust input can reach the path. The sources do not name the aliases or the tools.
Who is affected
The npm package openclaw at 2026.4.24 and earlier, where the embedded runner's per-provider tool policy is in use and requests can route through provider aliases.
npm ls openclawUse npm ls -g openclaw for a global install. Versions up to 2026.4.24 are affected.
openclaw
- Ecosystem
- npm
- Affected
- <= 2026.4.24
- Fixed in
- 2026.4.25
- Check
npm ls openclaw
How to fix it
Upgrade to [email protected], the first stable patched version:
npm install [email protected]Until then, the advisory says to avoid provider alias routing for embedded runner tool policy. It also advises narrow channel and tool allowlists, not sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disabling the feature when you do not need it.
How to tell if you were hit
List the provider aliases defined in your OpenClaw configuration and check whether any embedded runner tool policy is written against a canonical provider name only. Review runner logs for tool calls made under an aliased provider that your policy should have denied. The sources give no log line for this flaw.
Original advisory
From the GitHub Advisory Database (CC BY 4.0).
Summary
Embedded runner policy could be confused by provider aliases. In affected versions, a request using provider aliases could compare policy against an alias instead of the canonical provider identity.
This advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw's trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.
Impact
When the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could select bundled tool access outside the intended provider policy. Practical impact depends on the operator's configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.
Patched Versions
The first stable patched version is 2026.4.25.
Mitigations
Avoid provider alias routing for embedded runner tool policy until patched. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.
Credited to zsxsoft, KeenSecurityLab, qclawer.
Questions
- How severe is CVE-2026-53809?
Medium. The CVSS 4.0 score is 4.8 and the 3.1 score is 3.8, with local access, low privileges and low integrity impact.
- Which version fixes it?
2026.4.25 is the first stable patched version. Versions up to 2026.4.24 are affected.
- Is it exploited in the wild?
Neither source says so. It is not listed as a known exploited vulnerability in this entry, and no public proof of concept is described.
References
How this page is made: the data panel comes from the GitHub Advisory Database, CISA’s KEV catalog, the NVD and FIRST EPSS, and updates twice a day. The analysis is written by an AI model from the sources listed above and checked by automated rules before it is published. Check versions against the vendor's advisory before you act. Methodology
More OpenClaw vulnerabilities
All OpenClaw entriesCVE-2026-62197
OpenClaw: Browser CDP discovery could accept blocked WebSocket URLs
medium8.5Oct 21, 2026CVE-2026-35630
OpenClaw: QQBot native approval buttons did not enforce configured approver identity
high8.0Jul 2, 2026CVE-2026-53806
OpenClaw: Combined POSIX shell options could confuse exec revalidation
high8.8Jul 2, 2026CVE-2026-53810
OpenClaw's marketplace runtime extension metadata could point at unscanned payloads
high8.8Jul 2, 2026CVE-2026-53811
OpenClaw: Matrix allowFrom could bind to mutable display names
high8.8Jul 2, 2026CVE-2026-53812
OpenClaw's browser act interactions could bypass private-network navigation checks
medium7.7Jul 2, 2026
