Skip to content

OpenClaw has a Telegram webhook request forgery (missing `channels.telegram.webhookSecret`) → auth bypass

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 14, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Feb 19, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

< 2026.2.1

Patched versions

2026.2.1

Description

Summary

In Telegram webhook mode, if channels.telegram.webhookSecret is not set, OpenClaw may accept webhook HTTP requests without verifying Telegram’s secret token header. In deployments where the webhook endpoint is reachable by an attacker, this can allow forged Telegram updates (for example spoofing message.from.id).

Note: Telegram webhook mode is not enabled by default. It is enabled only when channels.telegram.webhookUrl is configured.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected: <= 2026.1.30
  • Patched: >= 2026.2.1

Impact

If an attacker can reach the webhook endpoint, they may be able to send forged updates that are processed as if they came from Telegram. Depending on enabled commands/tools and configuration, this could lead to unintended bot actions.

Mitigations / Workarounds

  • Set a strong channels.telegram.webhookSecret and ensure your reverse proxy forwards the X-Telegram-Bot-Api-Secret-Token header unchanged.
  • Restrict network access to the webhook endpoint (for example bind to loopback and only expose via a reverse proxy).

Fix Commit(s)

  • ca92597e1f9593236ad86810b66633144b69314d (config validation: webhookUrl requires webhookSecret)

Defense-in-depth / supporting fixes:

  • 5643a934799dc523ec2ef18c007e1aa2c386b670 (default webhook listener bind host to loopback)
  • 3cbcba10cf30c2ffb898f0d8c7dfb929f15f8930 (bound webhook request body size/time)
  • 633fe8b9c17f02fcc68ecdb5ec212a5ace932f09 (runtime guard: reject webhook startup when secret is missing/empty)

Thanks @yueyueL for reporting.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Feb 14, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 17, 2026
Reviewed Feb 17, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 19, 2026
Last updated Feb 19, 2026

Severity

High

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(3rd percentile)

Weaknesses

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-25474

GHSA ID

GHSA-mp5h-m6qj-6292

Source code

Credits

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