GHSA-hjvp-qhm6-wrh2 CVE-2026-32058

OpenClaw Node system.run approval context-binding weakness in approval-enabled host=node flows

Medium npm

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.20%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.66% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-15 External Control of System or Configuration Setting; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 2026.2.26; Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

In approval-enabled host=node workflows, system.run approvals did not always carry a strict, versioned execution-context binding. In uncommon setups that rely on these approvals as an integrity guardrail, a previously approved request could be reused with changed env input.

Affected Packages / Versions

Package: npm openclaw
Latest published npm version at triage: 2026.2.25
Affected range: <= 2026.2.25
Planned fixed version (next npm release): 2026.2.26

Preconditions / Typical Exposure

This requires all of the following:

system.run usage through host=node
Exec approvals enabled and used as an execution-integrity control
Access to an approval id in the same context

Most default single-operator local setups do not rely on this path, so practical exposure is typically lower.

Details

Approval matching now uses a required versioned binding (systemRunBindingV1) over command argv, cwd, agent/session context, and env hash.

The fix:

Requires commandArgv when requesting host=node approvals.
Requires systemRunBindingV1 when consuming approvals for node system.run.
Removes legacy non-versioned fallback matching and fails closed on missing/mismatched bindings.
Keeps env mismatch handling explicit and blocks GIT_EXTERNAL_DIFF in host env policy.
Adds/updates regression and contract coverage for mismatch mapping and binding rules.

Impact

Configuration-dependent approval-integrity weakness in node-host exec approval flows. Severity remains medium because exploitation depends on this specific approval mode and context.

Fix Commit(s)

10481097f8e6dd0346db9be0b5f27570e1bdfcfa

Release Process Note

patched_versions is pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.26) so once npm release 2026.2.26 is published, the advisory can be published without further metadata edits.

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
openclaw	`< 2026.2.26`	`2026.2.26`

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 → `2026.2.26`

npm

npm install openclaw@2026.2.26

yarn

yarn add openclaw@2026.2.26

pnpm

pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.26

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: High
Attack requirements: Present
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: Active
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 2.6

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

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

Weakness

CWE-15: External Control of System or Configuration Setting

One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
Implementation, Architecture and Design: Because setting manipulation covers a diverse set of functions, any attempt at illustrating it will inevitably be incomplete. Rather than searching for a tight-knit relationship between the functions addressed in the setting manipulation category, take a step back and consider the sorts of system values that an attacker should not be allowed to control.
Implementation, Architecture and Design: In general, do not allow user-provided or otherwise untrusted data to control sensitive values. The leverage that an attacker gains by controlling these values is not always immediately obvious, but do not underestimate the creativity of the attacker.

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-2026-32058

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