GHSA-6rcp-vxwf-3mfp CVE-2026-32052

OpenClaw's system.run shell-wrapper positional argv carriers could execute hidden commands under misleading approval text

Critical npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.95%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 61.15% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-436 Interpretation Conflict; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 2026.2.24; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

In openclaw up to and including 2026.2.23 (latest npm release as of February 25, 2026), system.run shell-wrapper inputs could present misleading approval/display text while still carrying hidden positional argv payloads that execute at runtime.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: openclaw (npm)
Affected: <= 2026.2.23
Patched: >= 2026.2.24 (planned next release)

Root Cause

For shell-wrapper forms (for example /bin/sh -c ...), command-text binding could focus on inline shell payload text while runtime execution still used the full argv vector. Positional argv carriers after the inline payload could therefore be executed under incomplete display context.

Security Impact

Approval/display context could omit executed argv carriers, enabling hidden command execution under misleading operator-visible text.

Fix

Detect shell-wrapper inline-command forms that carry trailing positional argv values.
Bind approval/display command text to full formatted argv for those carrier forms.
Reject payload-only rawCommand values when they do not match the execution-bound argv context for those forms.
Forward canonical command display text to the macOS companion exec host and validate rawCommand/argv consistency there for carrier wrappers and env-modifier shell preludes.

Verification

pnpm check
pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.gateway.config.ts
pnpm test:fast
pnpm vitest run src/infra/system-run-command.test.ts src/node-host/invoke-system-run.test.ts src/cli/nodes-cli.coverage.test.ts src/gateway/node-invoke-system-run-approval.test.ts
cd apps/macos && swift test --filter ExecSystemRunCommandValidatorTests

Fix Commit(s)

0f0a680d3df81739ea5088a2f88e65f938b7936b
55cf92578d266987e390c4bf688196af98eac748

Release Process Note

patched_versions is pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.24) so after npm publish the advisory can be published without further field edits.

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

Publication Update (2026-02-25)

openclaw@2026.2.24 is published on npm and contains the fix commit(s) listed above. This advisory now marks >= 2026.2.24 as patched.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 2026.2.24`	`2026.2.24`

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 → `2026.2.24`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.2.24

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.2.24

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.24

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 9.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-436: Interpretation Conflict

Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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) [REF-229] 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 access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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 [REF-7].
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-2026-32052

Packages

github.com/openclaw/openclaw

Timeline

Mar 3, 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