CVE-2026-28392
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedOpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.14 contain a privilege escalation vulnerability in the Slack slash-command handler that incorrectly authorizes any direct message sender when dmPolicy is set to open (must be configured). Attackers can execute privileged slash commands via direct message to bypass allowlist and access-group restrictions.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceOpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.14 contain a privilege escalation vulnerability in the Slack slash-command handler. When the dmPolicy configuration is set to 'open', the handler incorrectly authorizes any direct message sender, allowing attackers to bypass allowlist and access-group restrictions and execute privileged slash commands via direct messages to the bot.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 2026.2.14CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Determine installed OpenClaw versionRun the command 'openclaw --version' or check the package metadata to identify the exact version number currently deployedAffected if The installed version is less than 2026.2.14
-
Locate the OpenClaw configuration fileFind the configuration file (commonly config.yaml, openclaw.yml, or similar) in the deployment directory or default config locationAffected if The configuration file exists and is accessible
-
Inspect the dmPolicy settingOpen the configuration file and locate the dmPolicy parameter. Check its current valueAffected if The dmPolicy setting is explicitly set to 'open' (case-sensitive)
-
Verify Slack integration is activeConfirm that the Slack slash-command handler module is enabled in the configuration or running as part of the OpenClaw serviceAffected if The Slack integration and slash-command handler are enabled and processing commands
You are affected if OpenClaw version is below 2026.2.14 AND dmPolicy is set to 'open' AND the Slack slash-command handler is actively processing commands.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped2026.2.14
Update OpenClaw to version 2026.2.14 or later. Additionally, review the dmPolicy setting and change it from 'open' to a more restrictive policy if applicable.
2026.2.14
- Upgrade OpenClaw to version 2026.2.14 or later to address the privilege escalation vulnerability in the Slack slash-command handler
- After upgrading, verify that the dmPolicy configuration in your deployment aligns with your intended security policy, as this was the misconfigured setting that enabled the vulnerability
- Confirm that the fix at commit f19eabee54c49e9a2e264b4965edf28a2f92e657 is included in your upgraded version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-28392 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-28392 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data