Skip to content

GHSA-98ch-45wp-ch47 CVE-2026-34426 CVE-2026-34510 GHSA-h3x4-hc5v-v2gm

OpenClaw: Windows-compatible env override keys could bypass system.run approval binding

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.34% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-178 Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
Fix
2026.4.2
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

Before OpenClaw 2026.4.2, system-run approval binding normalized environment override keys differently from host execution. Windows-compatible keys could be omitted from the approval binding while still being injected at execution time.

Impact

An approved command could run with attacker-chosen environment overrides that were not represented in the approval binding. This created an approval-integrity gap for affected host-exec flows.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected versions: <= 2026.4.1
  • Patched versions: >= 2026.4.2
  • Latest published npm version: 2026.4.1

Fix Commit(s)

  • 7eb094a00d80e9f6bf0e62f2c45d3b88ff67c04d — align approval binding with execution-time env-key normalization

Release Process Note

The fix is present on main and is staged for OpenClaw 2026.4.2. Publish this advisory after the 2026.4.2 npm release is live.

Thanks @iskindar for reporting, and thanks @wsparks-vc for coordination.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openclaw
< 2026.4.2
2026.4.2
openclaw
< 2026.3.22
2026.3.22

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 → 2026.4.2

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.4.2
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.4.2
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.4.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 7.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-178: Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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