Skip to content

GHSA-h3rm-6x7g-882f CVE-2026-29608

OpenClaw's Node system.run approval hardening wrapper semantic drift can execute unintended local scripts

Medium npm
Severity
5.4 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.14%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 2.97% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
Fix
2026.3.2
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

In openclaw@2026.3.1, node system.run approval-path hardening rewrote wrapper command argv in a way that changed execution semantics. A command shown/approved as a shell payload (for example echo SAFE) could execute a different local script when wrapper argv were rewritten.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected: 2026.3.1 (latest published npm version as of March 2, 2026)
  • Fixed release: 2026.3.2 (released)

Technical Details

Root cause was in node-host approval hardening for system.run:

  • src/node-host/invoke-system-run-plan.ts rewrote argv[0] to the resolved executable.
  • Wrapper resolution unwrapped dispatch wrappers, so input like ['env','sh','-c','echo SAFE'] resolved executable sh.
  • The approved plan could become ['/bin/sh','sh','-c','echo SAFE'] while approval text remained echo SAFE.

That rewrite changed runtime behavior: /bin/sh interprets the extra sh positional argument as a script path, enabling execution of a local ./sh file from approved cwd instead of the approved payload text.

Impact

Approval-integrity break in host=node execution flow: operator-visible command text and executed behavior could diverge.

Exploit preconditions:

  • attacker can influence wrapper argv and place a local file in approved working directory,
  • operator grants approval for the displayed command.

Fix Commit(s)

  • dded569626b0d8e7bdab10b5e7528b6caf73a0f1

Fixed Version

  • Patched in openclaw@2026.3.2.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openclaw
>= 2026.3.1, < 2026.3.2
2026.3.2

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 → 2026.3.2

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.3.2
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.3.2
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.3.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 5.4

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
High
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
Active
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 6.7

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
  • Architecture and Design: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
  • 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: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

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