OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Versions 2026.2.13 and below allow the optional @openclaw/voice-call plugin Telnyx webhook handler to accept unsigned inbound webhook requests when telnyx.publicKey is not configured, enabling unauthenticated callers to forge Telnyx events. Telnyx webhooks are expected to be authenticated via Ed25519 signature verification. In affected versions, TelnyxProvider.verifyWebhook() could effectively fail open when no Telnyx public key was configured, allowing arbitrary HTTP POST requests to the voice-call webhook endpoint to be treated as legitimate Telnyx events. This only impacts deployments where the Voice Call plugin is installed, enabled, and the webhook endpoint is reachable from the attacker (for example, publicly exposed via a tunnel/proxy). The issue has been fixed in version 2026.2.14.
Weakness
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Potential Mitigations
- Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
- Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port.
- In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
- Where possible, avoid implementing custom, “grow-your-own” authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks.
- In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
Related Attack Patterns
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/12.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/166.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/216.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/36.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/62.html
References
- https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/29b587e73cbdc941caec573facd16e87d52f007b
- https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/f47584fec86d6d73f2d483043a2ad0e7e3c50411
- https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.2.14
- https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-4hg8-92x6-h2f3