Skip to content

OpenClaw has an authentication bypass in sandbox browser bridge server

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 16, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Mar 5, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

>= 2026.1.29-beta.1, < 2026.2.14

Patched versions

2026.2.14

Description

Summary

openclaw could start the sandbox browser bridge server without authentication.

When the sandboxed browser is enabled, openclaw runs a local (loopback) HTTP bridge that exposes browser control endpoints (for example /profiles, /tabs, /tabs/open, /agent/*). Due to missing auth wiring in the sandbox initialization path, that bridge server accepted requests without requiring gateway auth.

Impact

A local attacker (any process on the same machine) could access the bridge server port and:

  • enumerate open tabs and retrieve CDP WebSocket URLs
  • open/close/navigate tabs
  • execute JavaScript in page contexts via CDP
  • exfiltrate cookies/session data and page contents from authenticated sessions

This is a localhost-only exposure (CVSS AV:L), but provides full browser-session compromise for sandboxed browser usage.

Affected Versions

  • Introduced in: 2026.1.29-beta.1 (first npm release that shipped the sandbox browser bridge)
  • Affected range: >=2026.1.29-beta.1 <2026.2.14

Patched Versions

  • 2026.2.14

Mitigation

  • Upgrade to 2026.2.14 (recommended).
  • Or disable the sandboxed browser (agents.defaults.sandbox.browser.enabled=false).

Fix Details

  • The sandbox browser bridge server now always requires auth and enforces the same gateway browser control auth (token/password) that loopback browser clients already use.
  • Additional hardening: bridge server refuses non-loopback binds; local helper servers are bound to loopback.
  • Added regression tests (including unit coverage for per-port bridge auth fallback).

Fix commits:

Credits

Thanks to Adnan Jakati (@jackhax) of Praetorian for reporting this issue.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Feb 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 18, 2026
Reviewed Feb 18, 2026
Last updated Mar 5, 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
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
(7th percentile)

Weaknesses

Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-28468

GHSA ID

GHSA-h9g4-589h-68xv

Source code

Credits

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