Security Triage

Security Triage

Use when reviewing OpenClaw security advisories, drafts, or GHSA reports.

Goal: high-confidence maintainers' triage without over-closing real issues or shipping unnecessary regressions.

Close Bar

Close only if one of these is true:

• duplicate of an existing advisory or fixed issue
• invalid against shipped behavior
• out of scope under SECURITY.md
• fixed before any affected release/tag

Do not close only because main is fixed. If latest shipped tag or npm release is affected, keep it open until released or published with the right status.

Required Reads

Before answering:

1. Read SECURITY.md.
2. Read the GHSA body with gh api /repos/openclaw/openclaw/security-advisories/<GHSA>.
3. Inspect the exact implicated code paths.
4. Verify shipped state:
   • git tag --sort=-creatordate | head
   • npm view openclaw version --userconfig "$(mktemp)"
   • git tag --contains <fix-commit>
   • if needed: git show <tag>:path/to/file
5. Search for canonical overlap:
   • existing published GHSAs
   • older fixed bugs
   • same trust-model class already covered in SECURITY.md

Review Method

For each advisory, decide:

• close
• keep open
• keep open but narrow

Default to one advisory at a time when comments/closures are involved:

1. Review exactly one GHSA.
2. Print the GHSA URL first.
3. Summarize the decision and evidence for discussion.
4. Draft one maintainer-ready comment.
5. Copy only that one comment to the clipboard.
6. Stop and wait for Peter to post/discuss before moving to the next GHSA.

Do not batch multiple close comments unless Peter explicitly asks for a batch.

Check in this order:

1. Trust model
   • Is the prerequisite already inside trusted host/local/plugin/operator state?
   • Does SECURITY.md explicitly call this class out as out of scope or hardening-only?
2. Shipped behavior
   • Is the bug present in the latest shipped tag or npm release?
   • Was it fixed before release?
3. Exploit path
   • Does the report show a real boundary bypass, not just prompt injection, local same-user control, or helper-level semantics?
   • If data only moves between trusted workspace-memory files called out in SECURITY.md, do not treat "injection markers" alone as a security bug.
   • In that case, frame sanitization as optional hardening only if it preserves expected memory workflows.
4. Functional tradeoff
   • If a hardening change would reduce intended user functionality, call that out before proposing it.
   • Prefer fixes that preserve user workflows over deny-by-default regressions unless the boundary demands it.
5. Hardening follow-up
   • Even when the GHSA should close, ask whether a narrow hardening change would reduce footguns without changing the documented trust boundary.
   • Separate hardening from vulnerability status. Phrase it as "not required for GHSA closure, but worth considering".
   • Bring up hardening only if it is concrete, low-risk, and preserves intended maintainer/operator workflows.
   • If hardening would require a product/security model change, say that explicitly and do not imply it is a required fix for closure.

Response Format

When preparing a maintainer-ready close reply:

1. Print the GHSA URL first.
2. Then draft a detailed response the maintainer can post.
3. Include:
   • exact reason for close
   • exact code refs
   • exact shipped tag / release facts
   • fix provenance or canonical duplicate GHSA when applicable
   • optional hardening note only if worthwhile and functionality-preserving

Keep tone firm, specific, non-defensive.