GHSA-5f9p-f3w2-fwch CVE-2026-31993

OpenClaw macOS companion app (beta): allowlist parsing mismatch for system.run shell chains

Medium npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.30%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.08% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-184 Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs; CWE-285 Improper Authorization
Fix: 2026.2.22; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

In the macOS companion app (currently beta), a parsing mismatch in exec approvals could let shell-chain payloads pass allowlist checks in system.run under specific settings.

Impact

This path requires all of the following:

authenticated caller with operator.write
paired macOS beta node host
exec approvals set to security=allowlist and ask=on-miss

Under those conditions, a shell-chain command could be approved from an incomplete command view and then executed on the paired macOS host.

Default Install Status

Default installs are not affected.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Affected: <= 2026.2.21-2
Patched (planned next release): >= 2026.2.22

Technical Details

The fix hardens macOS allowlist resolution by evaluating shell chains per segment and failing closed on unsafe shell-substitution parsing in allowlist mode.

Product Status Note

The affected macOS companion app path is currently in beta.

Fix Commit(s)

5da03e622119fa012285cdb590fcf4264c965cb5
e371da38aab99521c4e076cd3d95fd775e00b784

Release Process Note

patched_versions is pre-set to the planned next npm release (2026.2.22) so once that version is published, this advisory can be published without additional metadata edits.

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 2026.2.22`	`2026.2.22`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

openclaw npm → `2026.2.22`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.2.22

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.2.22

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.22

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: Present
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): None
Integrity (vulnerable system): Low
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): Low
Availability (subsequent systems): None

CVSS 3.1 6.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: High
Privileges required: High
User interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Weakness

CWE-184: Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.

How to prevent it

Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on detecting disallowed inputs. There are too many variants to encode a character, especially when different environments are used, so there is a high likelihood of missing some variants. Only use detection of disallowed inputs as a mechanism for detecting suspicious activity. Ensure that you are using other protection mechanisms that only identify "good" input - such as lists of allowed inputs - and ensure that you are properly encoding your outputs.

CWE-285: Improper Authorization

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
Architecture and Design: 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 authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31993

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Mar 2, 2026 Published
Jun 17, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-3x84-qq85-fj65 OpenClaw: Browser CDP discovery could accept blocked WebSocket URLs	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-9c3v-684m-579c OpenClaw MCP SSE redirects could forward Authorization headers	Medium	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-f397-5vjw-v2c2 OpenClaw: Shell inline-command parsing could miss an allowlist check	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-rx78-29qr-5hq8 OpenClaw: Workspace-derived service PATH could influence trash command selection	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-ccwh-wwpp-6wg5 OpenClaw: Host environment sanitizer missed two Node.js control variables	High	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-985f-72mj-8gf7 OpenClaw: Tool group policy callers could accept unvalidated group IDs	Medium	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-9v8j-9c9g-w66c OpenClaw: Bootstrap token replay could widen pending pairing scopes	Medium	Also affects openclaw
GHSA-c226-q6fx-6j6c OpenClaw: macOS Swift exec allowlist missed combined POSIX inline flags	Medium	Also affects openclaw

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor