Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-25157 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 42% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; in the Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.
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.
CVE-2026-25157 is an OS command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) affecting OpenClaw, a personal AI assistant, in versions prior to 2026.1.29. The issue manifests in two ways: first, the sshNodeCommand function constructs a shell script without properly escaping the user-supplied project root path in an error message; if the cd command fails, this unescaped path is interpolated into an echo statement, enabling arbitrary command execution on the remote SSH host. Second, the parseSSHTarget function fails to validate SSH target strings that begin with a dash, such as -oProxyCommand=..., causing the string to be interpreted as an SSH configuration flag rather than a hostname and allowing arbitrary command execution on the local machine. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.7 (AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Exploitation requires local access (AV:L) with no privileges (PR:N) but high attack complexity (AC:H) and user interaction (UI:R), such as tricking a user into supplying a malicious project path or SSH target. An attacker could achieve arbitrary command execution either on the remote SSH host via a crafted project root path that triggers the faulty echo interpolation after a cd failure, or on the local machine by providing an SSH target prefixed with a dash to hijack SSH options like ProxyCommand.
The vulnerability has been addressed in OpenClaw version 2026.1.29. Additional details are available in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-q284-4pvr-m585.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-5362
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Prior to version 2026.1.29, there is an OS command injection vulnerability via the Project Root Path in sshNodeCommand. The sshNodeCommand function constructed a shell script without properly escaping the user-supplied project path in an…
more
error message. When the cd command failed, the unescaped path was interpolated directly into an echo statement, allowing arbitrary command execution on the remote SSH host. The parseSSHTarget function did not validate that SSH target strings could not begin with a dash. An attacker-supplied target like -oProxyCommand=... would be interpreted as an SSH configuration flag rather than a hostname, allowing arbitrary command execution on the local machine. This issue has been patched in version 2026.1.29.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Enterprise AI Assistants
- Risk Domain
- Supply Chain and Deployment
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: ai
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.