GHSA-94pw-c6m8-p9p9

> Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release. ## Summary The shared `/allowlist` command persists channel authorization config through `writeConfigFile(...)` but does not re-validate gateway client scopes for internal gateway callers. Because `chat.send` is intentionally reachable to `operator.write` callers and still creates a generic command-authorized internal context, an authenticated write-scoped gateway client can indirectly mutate channel `allowFrom` and `groupAllowFrom` policy that direct `config.patch` correctly reserves to `operator.admin`. This is not just a generic code smell. The current code already shows the intended boundary by adding sink-side internal admin checks to shared `/config` and `/plugins` writes, but `/allowlist` was left behind. ## Details The gateway's documented scope split is clear: - `chat.send` is a write-scoped action. - direct config mutation is an admin-scoped action. The vulnerable path is: 1. A gateway client authenticates with `operator.write`. 2. The client calls `chat.send`, which is intentionally allowed for that scope. 3. `chat.send` builds an internal message context with `CommandAuthorized: true` and carries `GatewayClientScopes` into the reply pipeline. 4. `resolveCommandAuthorization(...)` converts that internal message into `isAuthorizedSender=true` in the common case where no stricter `commands.allowFrom` override is configured. 5. `/allowlist add|remove` accepts that generic command authorization and proceeds into its config-backed edit path. 6. The handler clones the parsed config, calls `plugin.allowlist.applyConfigEdit(...)`, validates the result, and persists it with `writeConfigFile(validated.config)`. 7. No sink-side check requires `operator.admin` before the persistent write occurs. That creates a direct control-plane mismatch: - `config.patch` rejects the same caller with `missing scope: operator.admin`. - `/allowlist add dm ...` or `/allowlist add group ...` reached through `chat.se