Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
OpenClaw versions before 2026.3.11 let a lower-privileged paired device operator create more powerful tokens. That can turn limited pairing access into gateway administrator access or remote code execution on connected nodes. Treat this as urgent where OpenClaw controls operational devices.
Executive priority
Prioritize remediation quickly on production gateways. The business risk is loss of administrative control over devices and connected nodes, not just account misuse.
Technical view
The flaw is an authorization failure in device.token.rotate. Callers with operator.pairing scope can request newly minted tokens with scopes outside their own scope set, including operator.admin. The CVSS 3.1 score is 9.9 because exploitation is network-reachable, low-complexity, requires low privileges, and can affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Likely exposure
Systems running OpenClaw before 2026.3.11 are the stated exposure. Highest concern is environments where operator.pairing tokens exist, device pairing is delegated, or OpenClaw gateways control connected nodes.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not show CISA KEV listing or cited evidence of active exploitation. The described path still matters because a valid low-privilege pairing scope could be enough to gain broader administrative capability.
Researcher notes
Evidence is limited to the provided CVE, GitHub advisory, and VulnCheck references. No exploit code, public exploitation, or additional product scope is established in the provided bundle.
Mitigation direction
- Upgrade OpenClaw to 2026.3.11 or later, following vendor guidance.
- Inventory OpenClaw gateways and connected nodes for vulnerable versions.
- Revoke and reissue tokens minted before remediation where feasible.
- Restrict operator.pairing privileges to trusted users and services only.
- Monitor for unexpected operator.admin tokens or system.run activity.
Validation and detection
- Confirm each OpenClaw instance reports version 2026.3.11 or later.
- Review token rotation logs for scope increases beyond caller permissions.
- Check whether operator.pairing tokens exist outside expected service accounts.
- Verify gateway-admin access is limited to approved identities.
- Review vendor advisory updates for additional remediation details.
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-266: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. 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 lookupCredential and access behavior lookup
The CVE wording references authentication or credential exposure, so valid-account and credential-access review may help. 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-2026-32922 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
- Critical
- CVSS
- 9.9 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H3.16VulnCheckCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H——VulnCheckVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 4.0 score
9.4CriticalVector: 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
Base CVSS 3.1 score
9.9CriticalVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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-4jpw-hj22-2xmc)CVE reference, VulnCheck · vendor-advisory
- VulnCheck Advisory: OpenClaw < 2026.3.11 - Privilege Escalation via Unvalidated Scope in device.token.rotateCVE 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.
Incorrect Privilege Assignment
Incorrect Privilege Assignment represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.