Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-100567 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.9 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 15th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-87484
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw is an agent gateway distributed as the npm package 'openclaw'. In versions >= 2026.4.5 and < 2026.8.1, the Gateway validated a single DNS resolution result for a configured remote Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP) hostname, but the raw WebSocket and…
more
Playwright transports performed a later, independent DNS resolution, discarding the DNS pinning enforced at validation time. An attacker who controls an approved CDP hostname or its DNS answers can exploit this check-then-use gap via DNS rebinding to make the Gateway connect to a loopback, private, link-local, cloud metadata, or other SSRF-policy-denied address. The impact depends on the remote CDP configuration, DNS timing, and the services reachable from the Gateway host. The issue is fixed in 2026.8.1; as a mitigation, disable hostname-based remote CDP endpoints or restrict them to trusted, stable infrastructure.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
Secure development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.