GHSA-mqr9-vqhq-3jxw CVE-2026-31994
OpenClaw Windows Scheduled Task script generation allowed local command injection via unsafe cmd argument handling
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.59%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.40% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
- Fix
2026.2.19- Upgrade openclaw to this version or later
Description
Summary
OpenClaw Windows Scheduled Task script generation allowed unsafe argument handling in generated gateway.cmd files. In vulnerable versions, cmd metacharacter-only values could be emitted without safe quoting/escaping, which could lead to unintended command execution when the scheduled task runs.
Details
The issue affected Windows daemon startup script generation in src/daemon/schtasks.ts.
Vulnerable behavior included:
- Incomplete cmd argument quoting for metacharacter-only values.
- Incomplete handling of cmd expansion-sensitive characters in script arguments.
- Missing CR/LF guards for script-rendered fields.
The fix hardens Windows script generation by:
- Separating schtasks argument quoting from batch script argument quoting.
- Quoting cmd metacharacter arguments and escaping
%/!expansion cases. - Rejecting CR/LF in command arguments, task descriptions, and rendered environment assignments.
- Adding regression tests for metacharacter and line-break injection paths.
Impact
This issue is local to Windows deployments and requires control over values that feed service script generation (for example install-time/runtime arguments or environment-derived values). It can result in unintended command execution in the scheduled task context.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Vulnerable versions:
<= 2026.2.17 - Patched version:
>= 2026.2.19(planned next npm release) - Latest published npm version at update time (2026-02-19):
2026.2.17
Fix Commit(s)
280c6b117b2f0e24f398e5219048cd4cc3b82396
OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openclaw | < 2026.2.19 |
2026.2.19 |
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 → 2026.2.19
- npm
npm install openclaw@2026.2.19- yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.2.19- pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.19
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
How to prevent it
- 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 the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
- Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
- Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
- 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.
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