Skip to content

OpenClaw: Feishu webhook and card-action validation now fail closed

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 16, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Apr 17, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

< 2026.4.15

Patched versions

2026.4.15

Description

Summary

Feishu webhook mode accepted missing encryptKey configuration as valid and blank card-action callback tokens as usable lifecycle tokens. Together, those fail-open paths could allow unauthenticated webhook or card-action traffic to reach command dispatch in affected deployments.

Impact

A deployment using Feishu webhook mode without a configured encryptKey, or handling malformed card-action callbacks with blank callback tokens, could fail open instead of rejecting the request. Severity remains critical because affected webhook deployments expose a network-triggered path into OpenClaw command handling without the expected Feishu signature or replay protection.

Affected versions

  • Affected: < 2026.4.15
  • Patched: 2026.4.15

Fix

OpenClaw 2026.4.15 makes Feishu webhook and card-action validation fail closed. Webhook mode now refuses to start without an encryptKey, missing signing configuration returns invalid instead of valid, invalid signatures return 401, and blank card-action callback tokens are rejected before dispatch.

Verified in v2026.4.15:

  • extensions/feishu/src/monitor.transport.ts returns invalid when encryptKey is missing, refuses webhook mode without encryptKey, and rejects invalid signatures before JSON handling.
  • extensions/feishu/src/card-action.ts rejects blank callback tokens in the card-action lifecycle guard.
  • extensions/feishu/src/monitor.webhook-security.test.ts covers missing-encryptKey startup and transport rejection.
  • extensions/feishu/src/monitor.card-action.lifecycle.test.ts covers malformed blank-token card actions being dropped before handler dispatch.

Fix commit included in v2026.4.15 and absent from v2026.4.14:

  • c8003f1b33ed2924be5f62131bd28742c5a41aae via PR #66707

Thanks to @dhyabi2 for reporting this issue.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Apr 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 17, 2026
Reviewed Apr 17, 2026
Last updated Apr 17, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct. Learn more on MITRE.

Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay

A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes). Learn more on MITRE.

Initialization of a Resource with an Insecure Default

The product initializes or sets a resource with a default that is intended to be changed by the administrator, but the default is not secure. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-xh72-v6v9-mwhc

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.