Skip to content

OpenClaw has system.run shell-wrapper env injection via SHELLOPTS/PS4 can bypass allowlist intent (RCE)

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 23, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Mar 30, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

< 2026.2.22

Patched versions

2026.2.22

Description

Summary

system.run allowed SHELLOPTS + PS4 environment injection to trigger command substitution during bash -lc xtrace expansion before the allowlisted command body executed.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw (npm)
  • Affected: <= 2026.2.21-2 (includes latest published npm version at triage time)
  • Patched (planned next release): 2026.2.22

Impact

In allowlist mode, an attacker who can invoke system.run with request-scoped env could execute additional shell commands outside the intended allowlisted command body.

Root Cause

Host exec env sanitization blocked startup-file vectors (BASH_ENV, ENV, etc.) but did not block SHELLOPTS/PS4. For shell wrappers (bash|sh|zsh ... -c/-lc), request env overrides were passed through and bash evaluated PS4 under xtrace, enabling command substitution.

Fix

  • Block SHELLOPTS and PS4 in host exec env sanitizers (Node + macOS).
  • For shell wrappers (bash|sh|zsh ... -c/-lc), reduce request-scoped env overrides to an explicit allowlist (TERM, LANG, LC_*, COLORTERM, NO_COLOR, FORCE_COLOR).
  • Add regression tests for TS and macOS paths.

Fix Commit(s)

  • e80c803fa887f9699ad87a9e906ab5c1ff85bd9a

Release Process Note

patched_versions is pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.22). Once npm release 2026.2.22 is published, advisory publication is a final state action only.

Severity Rationale

This advisory is rated medium because exploitation requires a caller that can already invoke system.run with request-scoped env.

Under OpenClaw's documented trust model (SECURITY.md), authenticated Gateway callers are treated as trusted operators, and adversarial multi-operator / prompt-injection scenarios are out of scope.

The bug remains a real allowlist-intent bypass, but it does not cross a separate trust boundary in the documented deployment assumptions.

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Feb 23, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 3, 2026
Reviewed Mar 3, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 19, 2026
Last updated Mar 30, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity High
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required High
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(23rd percentile)

Weaknesses

External Control of System or Configuration Setting

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

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-32003

GHSA ID

GHSA-2fgq-7j6h-9rm4

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.