When multiple Google Chat webhook targets are registered on the same HTTP path, and request verification succeeds for more than one target, inbound webhook events could be routed by first-match semantics. This can cause cross-account policy/context misrouting.
openclaw <= 2026.2.13clawdbot <= 2026.1.24-3Affected component: extensions/googlechat/src/monitor.ts.
Baseline behavior allowed multiple webhook targets per path and selected the first target that passed verifyGoogleChatRequest(...). In shared-path deployments where multiple targets can verify successfully (for example, equivalent audience validation), inbound events could be processed under the wrong account context (wrong allowlist/session/policy).
main): 61d59a802869177d9cef52204767cd83357ab79eopenclaw will be patched in the next planned release: 2026.2.14.clawdbot is a legacy/deprecated package name; no patched version is currently planned. Migrate to openclaw and upgrade to openclaw >= 2026.2.14.
Ensure each Google Chat webhook target uses a unique webhook path so routing is never ambiguous.
The advisory is pre-populated with the planned patched version. After the npm release is published, the remaining action should be to publish the advisory.
Thanks @vincentkoc for reporting.
Fix commit 61d59a802869177d9cef52204767cd83357ab79e confirmed on main and in v2026.2.14. Upgrade to openclaw >= 2026.2.14.
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.