> Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.
browser.request still allows POST /reset-profile through the operator.write surface in OpenClaw v2026.3.22 after GHSA-vmhq-cqm9-6p7q
High
CWE:
CWE-863: Incorrect AuthorizationProposed CVSS v3.1:
8.1 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H)An authenticated caller who only has access to the scoped Gateway method browser.request on the operator.write surface can still reach a destructive persistent-profile management route.
Likely related advisory family:
GHSA-vmhq-cqm9-6p7qThis should be treated as a later-version residual or incomplete fix. The earlier fix blocked POST /profiles/create and profile deletion, but the latest released v2026.3.22 code still omits POST /reset-profile from the same mutation gate.
A caller with operator.write access to browser.request can still trigger persistent profile reset via POST /reset-profile.
This crosses the intended privilege boundary for browser profile management because the release already attempts to block adjacent persistent profile mutations on this same surface.
In practice, the allowed route reaches destructive behavior that can:
userDataDir to Trash when it existsThis is a real integrity and availability impact on persistent browser state, not a route-classification mismatch with no side effects.
Product:
openclawTested latest released version:
v2026.3.22e7d11f6c33e223a0dd8a21cfe01076bd76cef87aPublished artifact for that release:
openclaw-2026.3.22.tgz4dcc39c25c6cc63fedfd004f52d173716576fcf02026-03-23T10:56:05.946ZExact vulnerable paths on the shipped tag:
src/gateway/method-scopes.ts:114
browser.request is placed on the operator.write surfacesrc/gateway/server-methods/browser.ts:155-165
isPersistentBrowserProfileMutation(method, path) returns truesrc/browser/request-policy.ts:19-25
POST /profiles/create and DELETE /profiles/:name, but not POST /reset-profilesrc/browser/routes/basic.ts:161-170
POST /reset-profilesrc/browser/server-context.reset.ts:37-63
resetProfile() stops the browser, closes the connection, and moves the local profile directory to Trash when presentsrc/node-host/invoke-browser.ts:240-243
Relevant regression coverage gap on the shipped tag:
src/gateway/server-methods/browser.profile-from-body.test.ts:104-140
POST /profiles/create and DELETE /profiles/:namePOST /reset-profilePublished artifact evidence for the exact released package:
openclaw-2026.3.22.tgz::package/dist/build-info.jsonopenclaw-2026.3.22.tgz::package/dist/gateway-cli-Cxz4pSoJ.js:11469-11525openclaw-2026.3.22.tgz::package/dist/gateway-cli-Cxz4pSoJ.js:11484-11485openclaw-2026.3.22.tgz::package/dist/request-policy-nIRryZwZ.js:9-12openclaw-2026.3.22.tgz::package/dist/routes-CdaHRCET.js:6874-6889Important release note:
A direct control/exploit pair can be reproduced against the latest released version.
Preconditions:
[email protected]browser.requestoperator.write, not operator.adminReproduction steps:
browser.request with:
method: "POST"path: "/profiles/create"body: { "name": "poc-profile" }browser.request cannot create or delete persistent browser profilesbrowser.request again with:
method: "POST"path: "/reset-profile"body: { "profile": "poc-profile", "name": "poc-profile" }Why this happens in the released code:
isPersistentBrowserProfileMutation(...)POST /reset-profile as a protected mutation/reset-profile to profileCtx.resetProfile()resetProfile() performs state-changing behavior on the selected local profileThe shipped release shows the following behavior difference:
Control case:
POST /profiles/createExploit case:
POST /reset-profilebrowser.request surfaceresetProfile(), which performs destructive profile-management operationsThe reached route has concrete side effects:
userDataDir to Trash if it existsThis is therefore a concrete authorization and policy gap on a real destructive profile-management route. It is not a complaint about the existence of browser.request by itself.
Environment used for validation:
openclaw2026.3.22v2026.3.22e7d11f6c33e223a0dd8a21cfe01076bd76cef87aopenclaw-2026.3.22.tgz4dcc39c25c6cc63fedfd004f52d173716576fcf0Explicit trust-model statement:
Scope check:
browser.request surface by itselfPOST /reset-profile remains outside that gate in the shipped releaseRecommended fix:
POST /reset-profile.isPersistentBrowserProfileMutation(...), including:
src/gateway/server-methods/browser.tssrc/node-host/invoke-browser.tsPOST /reset-profile on the lower-privilege browser.request surfaceGHSA-vmhq-cqm9-6p7q as the prior family and close the remaining residual route in the same policy surface.| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
openclaw
|
- | 2026.3.24 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.