Skip to content

GHSA-w235-x559-36mg CVE-2026-27002

OpenClaw: Docker container escape via unvalidated bind mount config injection

Critical npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.53%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.73% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-250 Execution with Unnecessary Privileges
Fix
2026.2.15
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

A configuration injection issue in the Docker tool sandbox could allow dangerous Docker options (bind mounts, host networking, unconfined profiles) to be applied, enabling container escape or host data access.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected versions: <= 2026.2.14
  • Fixed version: >= 2026.2.15 (next release)

Impact

If an attacker can influence sandbox Docker configuration (or an operator pastes untrusted config), they may be able to:

  • mount sensitive host paths (e.g. /etc, /proc, /sys, /dev, Docker socket)
  • use network=host to bypass container network isolation
  • use seccompProfile=unconfined / apparmorProfile=unconfined to weaken isolation

This can lead to host secret exfiltration or full host control (via Docker socket exposure).

Fix

OpenClaw now blocks dangerous sandbox Docker settings:

  • runtime enforcement when building docker create args
  • config-schema validation for network=host, seccompProfile=unconfined, apparmorProfile=unconfined
  • security audit findings to surface dangerous sandbox docker config

Workarounds

  • Do not configure agents.*.sandbox.docker.binds to mount system directories or Docker socket paths.
  • Keep agents.*.sandbox.docker.network at none (default) or bridge.
  • Do not use unconfined for seccomp/AppArmor profiles.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 887b209db47f1f9322fead241a1c0b043fd38339
  • 1b6704ef5800152c777ea52b77aa2c8a46c13705 (docs)

Release Process Note

This advisory is pre-populated with the planned fixed version (>= 2026.2.15). Once openclaw@2026.2.15 is published to npm, publishing this advisory should be a single-click action.

Thanks @aether-ai-agent for reporting.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openclaw
< 2026.2.15
2026.2.15

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 → 2026.2.15

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.2.15
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.2.15
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.2.15

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
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 9.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-250: Execution with Unnecessary Privileges

The product performs an operation at a privilege level that is higher than the minimum level required, which creates new weaknesses or amplifies the consequences of other weaknesses.

How to prevent it
  • 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: Identify the functionality that requires additional privileges, such as access to privileged operating system resources. Wrap and centralize this functionality if possible, and isolate the privileged code as much as possible from other code [REF-76]. Raise privileges as late as possible, and drop them as soon as possible to avoid CWE-271. Avoid weaknesses such as CWE-288 and CWE-420 by protecting all possible communication channels that could interact with the privileged code, such as a secondary socket that is only intended to be accessed by administrators.
  • Architecture and Design: Identify the functionality that requires additional privileges, such as access to privileged operating system resources. Wrap and centralize this functionality if possible, and isolate the privileged code as much as possible from other code [REF-76]. Raise privileges as late as possible, and drop them as soon as possible to avoid CWE-271. Avoid weaknesses such as CWE-288 and CWE-420 by protecting all possible communication channels that could interact with the privileged code, such as a secondary socket that is only intended to be accessed by administrators.
  • Implementation: Perform extensive input validation for any privileged code that must be exposed to the user and reject anything that does not fit your strict requirements.
  • Implementation: When dropping privileges, ensure that they have been dropped successfully to avoid CWE-273. As protection mechanisms in the environment get stronger, privilege-dropping calls may fail even if it seems like they would always succeed.
  • Implementation: If circumstances force you to run with extra privileges, then determine the minimum access level necessary. First identify the different permissions that the software and its users will need to perform their actions, such as file read and write permissions, network socket permissions, and so forth. Then explicitly allow those actions while denying all else [REF-76]. Perform extensive input validation and canonicalization to minimize the chances of introducing a separate vulnerability. This mitigation is much more prone to error than dropping the privileges in the first place.
  • Operation, System Configuration: Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.

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