Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-26322 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 7.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 26th 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 Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) 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-2026-26322 is a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CWE-918) in OpenClaw, a personal AI assistant, affecting versions prior to 2026.2.14. The issue resides in the Gateway tool, which accepts tool-supplied `gatewayUrl` parameters without sufficient restrictions or validation. This allows the OpenClaw host to initiate outbound WebSocket connections to arbitrary user-specified targets, including localhost services, private network addresses, or cloud metadata endpoints.
Exploitation requires low privileges (PR:L), typically limited to authenticated operators, trusted automation, or deployments where tool calls accepting `gatewayUrl` overrides are exposed to non-operators. It is not exploitable by arbitrary internet users in drive-by scenarios unless explicitly configured to allow untrusted tool invocation. Attackers can force outbound connection attempts, resulting in errors or timeouts, and in setups where results are observable, perform limited network reachability probing. If the target supports WebSocket and is reachable, further interactions may be possible. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 7.6 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L), reflecting high confidentiality impact with low integrity and availability effects.
The OpenClaw security advisory (GHSA-g6q9-8fvw-f7rf), release notes for v2026.2.14, and fixing commit (c5406e1d2434be2ef6eb4d26d8f1798d718713f4) recommend upgrading to version 2026.2.14 or later. The patch restricts tool-supplied `gatewayUrl` overrides to loopback addresses on the configured gateway port or the preconfigured `gateway.remote.url`, while rejecting disallowed protocols, credentials, query parameters, hashes, and non-root paths.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8427
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Prior to OpenClaw version 2026.2.14, the Gateway tool accepted a tool-supplied `gatewayUrl` without sufficient restrictions, which could cause the OpenClaw host to attempt outbound WebSocket connections to user-specified targets. This requires the ability to…
more
invoke tools that accept `gatewayUrl` overrides (directly or indirectly). In typical setups this is limited to authenticated operators, trusted automation, or environments where tool calls are exposed to non-operators. In other words, this is not a drive-by issue for arbitrary internet users unless a deployment explicitly allows untrusted users to trigger these tool calls. Some tool call paths allowed `gatewayUrl` overrides to flow into the Gateway WebSocket client without validation or allowlisting. This meant the host could be instructed to attempt connections to non-gateway endpoints (for example, localhost services, private network addresses, or cloud metadata IPs). In the common case, this results in an outbound connection attempt from the OpenClaw host (and corresponding errors/timeouts). In environments where the tool caller can observe the results, this can also be used for limited network reachability probing. If the target speaks WebSocket and is reachable, further interaction may be possible. Starting in version 2026.2.14, tool-supplied `gatewayUrl` overrides are restricted to loopback (on the configured gateway port) or the configured `gateway.remote.url`. Disallowed protocols, credentials, query/hash, and non-root paths are rejected.
- 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
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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 development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
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.
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.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.