Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-2026-22176 is a medium-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 48th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.19 are affected by CVE-2026-22176, a command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) in the Windows Scheduled Task script generation process. The issue arises when environment variables are written to the gateway.cmd file using unquoted set KEY=VALUE assignments, which allows shell metacharacters to break out of the assignment context. This flaw enables attackers to inject arbitrary commands through environment variable values containing metacharacters such as &, |, ^, %, or !. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.1 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L), indicating medium severity with local attack vector, low attack complexity, and low privileges required.
A local attacker with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability by setting environment variables with specially crafted values that include shell metacharacters. When OpenClaw generates and executes the gateway.cmd scheduled task script, the injected commands execute in the context of the process, potentially allowing arbitrary command execution on the Windows system. This can lead to high integrity impact, such as modifying files or configurations, and low availability impact, without compromising confidentiality.
Advisories and the associated patch recommend upgrading to OpenClaw version 2026.2.19 or later, where the fix is implemented in GitHub commit dafe52e8cf1a041d898cfb304a485fa05e5f58fb. The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-pj5x-38rw-6fph) and VulnCheck advisory detail the issue and mitigation steps, emphasizing proper quoting of environment variables in script generation to prevent command injection.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13005
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.19 contain a command injection vulnerability in Windows Scheduled Task script generation where environment variables are written to gateway.cmd using unquoted set KEY=VALUE assignments, allowing shell metacharacters to break out of assignment context. Attackers can inject…
more
arbitrary commands through environment variable values containing metacharacters like &, |, ^, %, or ! to achieve command execution when the scheduled task script is generated and executed.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.