CVE-2026-53838: OpenClaw: Node pairing reconnection could confuse approval scope state
In OpenClaw, a paired node that reconnects could change its pairing state in a way that altered the approval scope decision, restoring or presenting broader node authority than the operator granted. Versions before 2026.5.27 are affected. Update the openclaw package to 2026.5.27 and revoke pairings you do not recognise.
Published Jul 2, 2026 · Updated Aug 25, 2026 · Analysis Oct 25, 2026
What an attacker can do
OpenClaw pairs remote nodes to a Gateway and approves each with a scope. In affected versions, a node session that was paired or was reconnecting could mutate the pairing state, and that changed the approval scope decision. The result is that a node could hold or present more authority than the operator intended. The weakness is classed as a time-of-check to time-of-use race (CWE-367). The sources do not describe the reconnection sequence or the timing window.
The CVSS 4.0 vector is network, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction. The low privilege requirement points to an attacker who already has a paired node or node session. They gain broader node authority, with high integrity impact. The advisory does not list what the extra authority allows, so it depends on your node setup.
The two CVSS scores in the data disagree: 4.0 gives 6.0 and 3.1 gives 9.8. The advisory text and the 4.0 vector match a medium issue that needs an existing node.
Who is affected
Affected: npm openclaw before 2026.5.27. Only setups that use node pairing, with the feature enabled and reachable, are exposed.
npm ls -g openclawDrop -g for a project install. Review the list of paired nodes in your Gateway to see which ones exist.
openclaw
- Ecosystem
- npm
- Affected
- < 2026.5.27
- Fixed in
- 2026.5.27
- Check
npm ls openclaw
How to fix it
Update to openclaw 2026.5.27, the first stable patched version.
npm install -g [email protected]Until you can update, the advisory advises revoking unexpected node pairings and re-pairing only trusted nodes. It also suggests narrow channel and tool allowlists, not sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disabling node pairing if you do not need it.
How to tell if you were hit
The sources give no log line. List paired nodes and compare each node's current approval scope with what you approved. Look for nodes that reconnected and now hold broader scope. Review Gateway logs for repeated reconnects from the same node shortly before a scope change. Revoke any pairing you cannot account for.
Original advisory
From the GitHub Advisory Database (CC BY 4.0).
Summary
Node pairing reconnection could confuse approval scope state. In affected versions, a paired or reconnecting node session could mutate pairing state in a way that changed the approval scope decision.
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 restore or present broader node authority than the operator intended. 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 2026.5.27.
Mitigations
revoke unexpected node pairings and re-pair only trusted nodes 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 YLChen-007.
Questions
- Which OpenClaw version fixes the node pairing reconnection bug?
2026.5.27. All earlier versions are affected.
- Does the attacker need a paired node?
The CVSS vector requires low privileges, which suggests an existing paired or reconnecting node session. The advisory does not spell out the exact precondition.
- Is the 9.8 CVSS score accurate?
The 3.1 vector lists no privileges required and high impact on all three areas, while the 4.0 vector gives 6.0 with low privileges and integrity impact only. The advisory text describes a scope-confusion issue, so the 4.0 reading is closer.
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-2026-53809
OpenClaw: Embedded runner policy could be confused by provider aliases
medium3.8Jul 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, 2026
