Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
OpenClaw before 2026.2.22 could let an already privileged, approved user bypass later approval checks for wrapped execution requests. The business risk is unauthorized code execution in gateway and node-host execution flows, which can affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability of those systems.
Executive priority
Prioritize remediation for OpenClaw systems that can execute commands on gateways or nodes. The issue has high impact if prerequisites are met, but the provided evidence does not confirm active exploitation.
Technical view
The issue is an authorization bypass in allow-always wrapper persistence. Approval appears to persist at the wrapper level rather than revalidating the inner executable intent, allowing a previously approved benign wrapped request to be reused for different execution content. The CVE maps to CWE-78 and carries CVSS 4.0 score 7.1.
Likely exposure
Exposure is most likely where OpenClaw versions before 2026.2.22 are deployed with gateway or node-host execution flows and allow-always approval persistence enabled or used. The affected-version metadata in the bundle is sparse, so teams should verify against vendor guidance.
Exploitation context
The bundle says remote attackers need high privileges, user approval, and a prerequisite attack condition. It does not show CISA KEV listing or cited evidence of active exploitation. Treat exploitation as plausible but not confirmed from the provided sources.
Researcher notes
Focus review on the authorization boundary between wrapper approval and inner executable intent. The key question is whether persisted allowlist entries bind to the exact validated operation or only to the wrapper context. Preserve logs for approval and execution correlation.
Mitigation direction
- Upgrade OpenClaw to 2026.2.22 or later where applicable.
- Review the GitHub advisory and patch commit for vendor-approved remediation details.
- Audit and remove stale allow-always wrapper approval entries.
- Restrict approval and execution access to trusted administrative users.
- Monitor gateway and node-host execution flows for unexpected command intent changes.
Validation and detection
- Inventory all OpenClaw deployments and record exact versions.
- Confirm whether any instance is earlier than 2026.2.22.
- Review allow-always wrapper persistence entries for broad or stale approvals.
- Check execution logs for approved wrappers followed by changed inner intent.
- Confirm the patch or fixed release is deployed in test and production.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-78: Command execution behavior lookup
Command injection weaknesses can lead defenders to review execution techniques and command interpreter telemetry. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupExecution behavior lookup
The CVE wording references code or command execution, so execution technique review may help defensive triage. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupPrivilege behavior lookup
The CVE wording references privilege impact, so privilege escalation and authorization behavior review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2026-29607 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- High
- CVSS
- 7.1 (4.0)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
2 official scoresWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N——VulnCheckCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H0.95.9VulnCheckVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 4.0 score
7.1HighVector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Base CVSS 3.1 score
6.8MediumVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-6j27-pc5c-m8w8)CVE reference, VulnCheck · vendor-advisory
- Patch CommitCVE reference, VulnCheck · patch
- VulnCheck Advisory: OpenClaw < 2026.2.22 - Authorization Bypass via allow-always Wrapper PersistenceCVE reference, VulnCheck · third-party-advisory
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.