Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-26317 is a high-severity CSRF (CWE-352) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 4th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Enterprise AI Assistants; in the Protocol-Specific Risks risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SC-23 (Session Authenticity) — 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-2026-26317 affects OpenClaw, a personal AI assistant, in versions prior to 2026.2.14. The vulnerability resides in browser-facing localhost mutation routes that accept cross-origin browser requests without explicit Origin or Referer validation. Bound to loopback, these routes reduce remote exposure but fail to block browser-initiated requests from malicious origins, enabling cross-site request forgery (CWE-352). The issue carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L), indicating high integrity and low availability impact.
A malicious website can exploit this vulnerability when a victim visits the site with OpenClaw's browser control service reachable on loopback in their browser context. No privileges are required, but user interaction is needed to load the attacker's page. Successful exploitation allows unauthorized state changes to the victim's local OpenClaw browser control plane, such as opening tabs, starting or stopping the browser, or mutating storage and cookies.
The patch in OpenClaw version 2026.2.14 rejects mutating HTTP methods (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE) if the request shows a non-loopback Origin or Referer, or a Sec-Fetch-Site: cross-site header. Additional mitigations recommended in advisories include enabling browser control authentication via token or password and avoiding operation with authentication disabled. Relevant resources include the fixing commit at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/b566b09f81e2b704bf9398d8d97d5f7a90aa94c3, release notes at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.2.14, and the security advisory at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-3fqr-4cg8-h96q.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8433
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Prior to 2026.2.14, browser-facing localhost mutation routes accepted cross-origin browser requests without explicit Origin/Referer validation. Loopback binding reduces remote exposure but does not prevent browser-initiated requests from malicious origins. A malicious website can trigger…
more
unauthorized state changes against a victim's local OpenClaw browser control plane (for example opening tabs, starting/stopping the browser, mutating storage/cookies) if the browser control service is reachable on loopback in the victim's browser context. Starting in version 2026.2.14, mutating HTTP methods (POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE) are rejected when the request indicates a non-loopback Origin/Referer (or `Sec-Fetch-Site: cross-site`). Other mitigations include enabling browser control auth (token/password) and avoid running with auth disabled.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Enterprise AI Assistants
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- 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
—
—
—
V3.3.2V3.5.1V10.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement requires verifying that state-changing requests originate from the authenticated user rather than a forged cross-site source.
Protecting session authenticity prevents attackers from replaying or forging authenticated requests via the victim's browser.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require anti-CSRF controls such as tokens or SameSite attributes.
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.
By denying access to phishing or malicious sites, the control lowers the likelihood that a user will be tricked into submitting a forged request that performs an unintended action on another site.
Contextual intelligence about emerging CSRF toolkits can be translated into updated anti-CSRF token or same-site policy configurations across applications.