Skip to content

OpenClaw Node system.run approval context-binding weakness in approval-enabled host=node flows

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 26, 2026 in openclaw/openclaw • Updated Mar 30, 2026

Package

npm openclaw (npm)

Affected versions

< 2026.2.26

Patched versions

2026.2.26

Description

Summary

In approval-enabled host=node workflows, system.run approvals did not always carry a strict, versioned execution-context binding. In uncommon setups that rely on these approvals as an integrity guardrail, a previously approved request could be reused with changed env input.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: npm openclaw
  • Latest published npm version at triage: 2026.2.25
  • Affected range: <= 2026.2.25
  • Planned fixed version (next npm release): 2026.2.26

Preconditions / Typical Exposure

This requires all of the following:

  • system.run usage through host=node
  • Exec approvals enabled and used as an execution-integrity control
  • Access to an approval id in the same context

Most default single-operator local setups do not rely on this path, so practical exposure is typically lower.

Details

Approval matching now uses a required versioned binding (systemRunBindingV1) over command argv, cwd, agent/session context, and env hash.

The fix:

  • Requires commandArgv when requesting host=node approvals.
  • Requires systemRunBindingV1 when consuming approvals for node system.run.
  • Removes legacy non-versioned fallback matching and fails closed on missing/mismatched bindings.
  • Keeps env mismatch handling explicit and blocks GIT_EXTERNAL_DIFF in host env policy.
  • Adds/updates regression and contract coverage for mismatch mapping and binding rules.

Impact

Configuration-dependent approval-integrity weakness in node-host exec approval flows. Severity remains medium because exploitation depends on this specific approval mode and context.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 10481097f8e6dd0346db9be0b5f27570e1bdfcfa

Release Process Note

patched_versions is pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.26) so once npm release 2026.2.26 is published, the advisory can be published without further metadata edits.

OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.

References

@steipete steipete published to openclaw/openclaw Feb 26, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 2, 2026
Reviewed Mar 2, 2026
Last updated Mar 30, 2026

Severity

Low

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 Present
Privileges Required Low
User interaction Active
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
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:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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.
(8th 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.

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-2026-32058

GHSA ID

GHSA-hjvp-qhm6-wrh2

Source code

Credits

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