CVE-2026-32035
MEDIUMOpenClaw versions prior to 2026.3.2 fail to pass the senderIsOwner flag when processing Discord voice transcripts in agentCommand, causing the flag to default to true. Non-owner voice participants can exploit this omission to access owner-only tools including gateway and cron functionality in...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
What systems are affected?
| Package | Ecosystem | Vulnerable Range | Patched |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenClaw | pip | — | No patch |
Do you use OpenClaw? You're affected.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
No patch available
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-32035?
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.3.2 fail to pass the senderIsOwner flag when processing Discord voice transcripts in agentCommand, causing the flag to default to true. Non-owner voice participants can exploit this omission to access owner-only tools including gateway and cron functionality in mixed-trust channels.
Is CVE-2026-32035 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-32035 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-32035?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-32035?
CVE-2026-32035 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.9 (MEDIUM).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.3.2 fail to pass the senderIsOwner flag when processing Discord voice transcripts in agentCommand, causing the flag to default to true. Non-owner voice participants can exploit this omission to access owner-only tools including gateway and cron functionality in mixed-trust channels.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-863 — Incorrect Authorization: The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
- [Architecture and Design] Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- [Architecture and Design] Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L References
Timeline
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2026-33579 9.9 Analysis pending
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-32922 9.9 Analysis pending
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-30741 9.8 OpenClaw: RCE via request-side prompt injection
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-53838 9.8 OpenClaw: approval scope bypass via reconnection state
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-32038 9.8 Analysis pending
Same package: openclaw