mirror of
https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw.git
synced 2026-07-15 10:26:07 +00:00
f7d7148cf0
Source-grounded rewrite of 529 published docs pages with per-unit information-loss verification: 1,713 factual corrections cited to src/**, generated surfaces regenerated, frontmatter titles preserved for i18n, release notes pages untouched. All docs gates green. Closes #100141
58 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
58 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
summary: "How OpenClaw triages, responds to, and follows up on security incidents"
|
|
title: "Incident response"
|
|
read_when:
|
|
- Responding to a security report or suspected security incident
|
|
- Preparing a coordinated disclosure or patched security release
|
|
- Reviewing post-incident follow-up expectations
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Detection and triage
|
|
|
|
Security signals come from:
|
|
|
|
- GitHub Security Advisories (GHSA) and private vulnerability reports.
|
|
- Public GitHub issues/discussions when reports are not sensitive.
|
|
- Automated signals: Dependabot, CodeQL, npm advisories, secret scanning.
|
|
|
|
Initial triage:
|
|
|
|
1. Confirm affected component, version, and trust boundary impact.
|
|
2. Classify as a security issue vs. hardening/no-action, using `SECURITY.md`'s scope and out-of-scope rules.
|
|
3. An incident owner responds accordingly.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Severity
|
|
|
|
| Severity | Definition |
|
|
| -------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Critical | Package/release/repository compromise, active exploitation, or unauthenticated trust-boundary bypass with high-impact control or data exposure. |
|
|
| High | Verified trust-boundary bypass requiring limited preconditions (for example, authenticated but unauthorized high-impact action), or exposure of OpenClaw-owned sensitive credentials. |
|
|
| Medium | Significant security weakness with practical impact but constrained exploitability or substantial prerequisites. |
|
|
| Low | Defense-in-depth findings, narrowly scoped denial-of-service, or hardening/parity gaps without a demonstrated trust-boundary bypass. |
|
|
|
|
## 3. Response
|
|
|
|
1. Acknowledge receipt to the reporter (privately when sensitive).
|
|
2. Reproduce on supported releases and latest `main`, then implement and validate a patch with regression coverage.
|
|
3. Critical/high: prepare patched release(s) as fast as practical.
|
|
4. Medium/low: patch in the normal release flow and document mitigation guidance.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Communication and disclosure
|
|
|
|
Communicate through GitHub Security Advisories in the affected repository, release notes/changelog entries for fixed versions, and direct reporter follow-up on status and resolution.
|
|
|
|
Critical/high incidents get coordinated disclosure, with CVE issuance when appropriate. Low-risk hardening findings may be documented in release notes or advisories without a CVE, depending on impact and user exposure.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Recovery and follow-up
|
|
|
|
After shipping the fix:
|
|
|
|
1. Verify remediations in CI and release artifacts.
|
|
2. Run a short post-incident review: timeline, root cause, detection gap, prevention plan.
|
|
3. Add follow-up hardening/tests/docs tasks and track them to completion.
|
|
|
|
## Related
|
|
|
|
- [Security policy](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/SECURITY.md) — report scope and trust model.
|
|
- [Threat model](/security/THREAT-MODEL-ATLAS)
|