Skip to content

ZeptoClaw: Generic webhook channel trusts caller-supplied identity fields; allowlist is checked against untrusted payload data

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 11, 2026 in qhkm/zeptoclaw • Updated Mar 13, 2026

Package

cargo zeptoclaw (Rust)

Affected versions

<= 0.7.5

Patched versions

0.7.6

Description

Summary

The generic webhook channel trusts caller-supplied identity fields (sender, chat_id) from the request body and applies authorization checks to those untrusted values. Because authentication is optional and defaults to disabled (auth_token: None), an attacker who can reach POST /webhook can spoof an allowlisted sender and choose arbitrary chat_id values, enabling high-risk message spoofing and potential IDOR-style session/chat routing abuse.

Details

Relevant code paths:

  • src/channels/webhook.rs:121 sets runtime default auth_token: None.
  • src/config/types.rs:910 also defaults webhook config auth_token to None.
  • src/channels/webhook.rs:224 (validate_auth) explicitly allows requests when no token is configured.
  • src/channels/webhook.rs:128 defines WebhookPayload with identity fields fully controlled by caller input:
    • sender: String
    • chat_id: String
  • src/channels/webhook.rs:421 performs allowlist authorization using payload.sender.
  • src/channels/webhook.rs:433 and src/channels/webhook.rs:434 create InboundMessage using untrusted payload.sender and payload.chat_id.

Why this is vulnerable:

  • The system treats user-provided JSON identity as authoritative identity.
  • Allowlist enforcement does not verify sender authenticity beyond that payload value.
  • chat_id is also attacker-controlled, so routing/session association can be steered to arbitrary chats/conversations.
  • If the webhook is exposed without strong upstream authn/authz controls, spoofing is straightforward.

PoC

  1. Configure the webhook channel in a vulnerable posture (common default behavior):
    • enabled = true
    • bind_address = "0.0.0.0" (or any reachable interface)
    • port = 9876
    • path = "/webhook"
    • auth_token = null (or omitted)
    • allow_from = ["trusted-user-1"]
    • deny_by_default = true
  2. Start ZeptoClaw.
  3. Send a forged request with attacker-chosen sender and chat_id, without any Authorization header:
curl -i -X POST "http://127.0.0.1:9876/webhook" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  --data '{
    "message":"FORGED: run privileged workflow",
    "sender":"trusted-user-1",
    "chat_id":"victim-chat-42"
  }'
  1. Observe:
    • Response is HTTP/1.1 200 OK.
    • Message is accepted as if it originated from trusted-user-1.
    • Message is routed under attacker-chosen chat_id (victim-chat-42).

Impact

  • Vulnerability type:
    • Authentication/authorization bypass (identity spoofing)
    • IDOR-style routing/control issue via attacker-chosen chat_id
  • Affected deployments:
    • Any deployment exposing the generic webhook endpoint without strict upstream authentication and identity binding.
  • Security consequences:
    • Forged inbound messages from spoofed trusted users.
    • Bypass of allowlist intent by injecting allowlisted sender IDs in payload.
    • Cross-chat/session contamination or hijacking by choosing arbitrary chat_id.
    • Potential unauthorized downstream agent/tool actions triggered by malicious input.

References

@qhkm qhkm published to qhkm/zeptoclaw Mar 11, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 12, 2026
Reviewed Mar 12, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 12, 2026
Last updated Mar 13, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(13th percentile)

Weaknesses

Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources. Learn more on MITRE.

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-32231

GHSA ID

GHSA-46q5-g3j9-wx5c

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.