Skip to content

OpenClaw Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Node Invoke Approval Bypass in Gateway

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 14, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Mar 6, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

< 2026.2.14

Patched versions

2026.2.14

Description

Summary

A remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the gateway-to-node invocation path allowed an authenticated gateway client to bypass node-host exec approvals by injecting internal control fields into node.invoke parameters.

Affected Component

  • Gateway method: node.invoke for node command system.run
  • Node host runner: exec approval gating for system.run

Impact

If an attacker can authenticate to a gateway (for example via a leaked/shared gateway token or a paired device token with operator.write), they could execute arbitrary commands on connected node hosts that support system.run. This can lead to full compromise of developer workstations, CI runners, and servers running the node host.

Technical Details

The gateway forwarded user-controlled params to node hosts without sanitizing internal approval fields. The node host treated params.approved === true and/or params.approvalDecision as sufficient to skip the approval workflow.

Fix

Patched in OpenClaw 2026.2.14.

  • Commits:
    • 318379cdb8d045da0009b0051bd0e712e5c65e2d
    • a7af646fdab124a7536998db6bd6ad567d2b06b0
    • c1594627421f95b6bc4ad7c606657dc75b5ad0ce
    • 0af76f5f0e93540efbdf054895216c398692afcd
  • Gateway strips untrusted approval control fields from system.run user input.
  • Gateway only re-attaches approval flags when params.runId references a valid exec.approval.request record and the request context matches. Approval IDs are bound to the requesting device identity (stable across reconnects), preventing replay by other clients.
  • Gateway forwards only an allowlisted set of system.run parameters, preventing future control-field smuggling.

Mitigations

  • Upgrade to 2026.2.14 or later.
  • Restrict access to the gateway (do not expose it to untrusted networks/users).
  • Rotate gateway credentials if you suspect token/password exposure.
  • Disable remote command execution on nodes by blocking system.run at the gateway (gateway.nodes.denyCommands) and/or by configuring node exec security to deny.

Credits

OpenClaw thanks @222n5 for reporting this issue.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Feb 14, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 2, 2026
Reviewed Mar 2, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 5, 2026
Last updated Mar 6, 2026

Severity

Critical

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 Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High

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:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

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.
(28th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly. Learn more on MITRE.

Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')

The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor. Learn more on MITRE.

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-28466

GHSA ID

GHSA-gv46-4xfq-jv58

Source code

Credits

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