Vulnerability Database

349,003

Total vulnerabilities in the database

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

Improper Access Control

> 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.

  • Published: Mar 30, 2026
  • Updated: Mar 31, 2026
  • GHSA: GHSA-68f8-9mhj-h2mp
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

No technical information available.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.