Summary
What this means (plain language)
If you give a client “chat/write” access to the gateway (operator.write) but you do not intend to let that client approve exec requests (operator.approvals), affected versions could still let that client approve/deny a pending exec approval by sending the /approve chat command.
This is mainly relevant for shared or multi-client setups where different tokens are intentionally scoped differently. Single-operator installs are typically less impacted.
Technical summary
A gateway client authenticated with a device token scoped only to operator.write (without operator.approvals) could approve/deny pending exec approval requests by sending a chat message containing the built-in /approve command.
exec.approval.resolve is correctly scoped to operator.approvals for direct RPC calls, but the /approve command path invoked it via an internal privileged gateway client.
Affected Packages / Versions
openclaw (npm): < 2026.2.2
Fix
- Fixed in
openclaw 2026.2.2.
- Fix commit(s):
efe2a464afcff55bb5a95b959e6bd9ec0fef086e.
- Change: when
/approve is invoked from gateway clients (webchat/internal channel), it now requires the requesting client to have operator.approvals (or operator.admin).
Workarounds
- Upgrade to
openclaw >= 2026.2.2.
- If you cannot upgrade: avoid issuing write-only device tokens to untrusted clients; disable text commands (
commands.text=false) or restrict access to the webchat/control UI.
References
- Fix:
src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.ts
- Coverage:
src/auto-reply/reply/commands-approve.test.ts
Release Process Note
This advisory is kept in draft; once the fixed npm versions are available, it can be published without further edits.
Thanks @yueyueL for reporting.