CVE-2026-33579
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 before 2026.3.28 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in the /pair approve command path that fails to forward caller scopes into the core approval check. A caller with pairing privileges but without admin privileges can approve pending device requests asking for broader scopes including admin access by exploiting the missing scope validation in extensions/device-pair/index.ts and src/infra/device-pairing.ts.
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 before 2026.3.28 has a privilege escalation vulnerability where the /pair approve command fails to validate and forward the caller's scopes into the core approval check. An attacker with pairing privileges (non-admin) can approve malicious device pairing requests that request broader scopes including admin access, effectively escalating their own privileges by exploiting missing scope validation in extensions/device-pair/index.ts and src/infra/device-pairing.ts.
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< 2026.3.28CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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.
-
Check OpenClaw installed versionRun the command to retrieve the OpenClaw version (e.g., openclaw --version, openclaw -v, or check package.json/package-lock.json if self-hosted)Affected if The installed version is lower than 2026.3.28 (e.g., 2026.3.27, 2026.3.0, or any version < 2026.3.28)
-
Locate the device-pairing extension source filesFind extensions/device-pair/index.ts and src/infra/device-pairing.ts in the OpenClaw installation directory or source code repositoryAffected if These files exist in the installation and the version is below 2026.3.28
-
Inspect scope validation in extensions/device-pair/index.tsOpen extensions/device-pair/index.ts and search for the /pair approve command handler. Check if the caller scopes are forwarded to the core approval check before granting approvalAffected if The code shows the /pair approve command does NOT pass caller scopes to the approval function, meaning any user with pairing privileges can approve any scope request
-
Inspect scope validation in src/infra/device-pairing.tsOpen src/infra/device-pairing.ts and examine the device approval function. Verify if it validates that the approving caller has equal or higher privileges than the requested scopesAffected if The approval function lacks scope validation logic and accepts any scope request without comparing against the caller's granted scopes
-
Check if device pairing feature is enabledReview the OpenClaw configuration files (e.g., config.json, settings.yaml) or runtime configuration for device-pairing or pairing-related feature flagsAffected if Device pairing is enabled and the installed version is below 2026.3.28
A user is affected if OpenClaw version is below 2026.3.28 and the device pairing feature is enabled, as the missing scope validation allows privilege escalation.
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 · scoped2026.3.28
Upgrade to OpenClaw version 2026.3.28 or later which contains proper scope validation. If immediate patching is not possible, disable the /pair approve functionality for non-admin users until the upgrade can be applied.
2026.3.28 or later
- 1. Identify the current OpenClaw version installed in your environment
- 2. Back up the current installation including configuration files and database
- 3. Download the official OpenClaw release version 2026.3.28 or later from the official repository
- 4. Stop the OpenClaw service to prevent active connections during upgrade
- 5. Replace the existing installation files with the new version
- 6. Review and update configuration files if required based on release notes
- 7. Start the OpenClaw service and verify it runs correctly
- 8. Test the /pair approve functionality to confirm the fix is working
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33579 — 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-2026-33579 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