Skip to content

GHSA-v2ww-5rh7-2h5v CVE-2026-53853

OpenClaw: Linux and macOS exec allowlists skipped configured argument patterns

High npm
Severity
7.6 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.35%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.31% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-693 Protection Mechanism Failure
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2026.5.12
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

OpenClaw's exec allowlist supported optional argPattern entries to restrict the arguments accepted for an allowlisted executable. In affected releases, Linux and macOS gateways skipped argPattern checks and treated a matching executable path as sufficient to satisfy the allowlist.

This meant an operator could configure an allowlist entry that appeared to permit only a narrow argv shape, but OpenClaw would allow other argv for the same executable without an approval prompt when tools.exec.security was set to allowlist.

This issue is limited to direct enforcement of configured argPattern values. OpenClaw's exec approvals remain best-effort guardrails and do not attempt to semantically model every interpreter, loader, package script, shell feature, or transitive file a command may use.

Affected configurations

This affects OpenClaw gateway deployments that meet all of these conditions:

  • the gateway runs on Linux or macOS
  • exec is configured with tools.exec.security: "allowlist"
  • at least one exec allowlist entry uses argPattern
  • the allowlisted executable accepts security-relevant arguments or flags

Path-only allowlist entries are not additionally affected by this issue, because those entries intentionally allow any arguments for the matched executable. Windows was not affected by this specific bug because the affected code path already applied argPattern checks on Windows.

Impact

If an untrusted or lower-trust sender can influence a tool-enabled agent to call exec, they may be able to run disallowed arguments for an executable that the operator intended to restrict with argPattern. Depending on the executable, those arguments can cause host-side file access, network access, or command execution that should have required an approval prompt.

The practical impact depends on the operator's allowlist and channel exposure. Examples of higher-risk allowlisted executables include tools with interpreter, loader, subprocess, network, or plugin flags such as git, python, node, bash, find, tar, and ssh.

This is not a bypass of all exec approval semantics. It is a bypass of the direct argPattern predicate that the operator configured and that the exec tool description advertised as enforced at runtime.

Patched Versions

The first stable patched version is 2026.5.12.

Mitigations

Upgrade to openclaw@2026.5.12 or later. Before upgrading, operators who use exec allowlist mode should review entries that combine an executable path with argPattern, especially for interpreter-like or subprocess-capable tools.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openclaw
< 2026.5.12
2026.5.12

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 → 2026.5.12

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.5.12
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.5.12
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.5.12

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 7.6

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

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

Weakness

CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.

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

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