CVE-2026-27007
Openclaw ≤ 2026.2.15
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-27007 is a medium-severity Incorrect Comparison Logic Granularity (CWE-1254) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 5th 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 CM-2 (Baseline Configuration) and SI-7 (Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8411
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Prior to version 2026.2.15, `normalizeForHash` in `src/agents/sandbox/config-hash.ts` recursively sorted arrays that contained only primitive values. This made order-sensitive sandbox configuration arrays hash to the same value even when order changed. In OpenClaw sandbox flows,…
more
this hash is used to decide whether existing sandbox containers should be recreated. As a result, order-only config changes (for example Docker `dns` and `binds` array order) could be treated as unchanged and stale containers could be reused. This is a configuration integrity issue affecting sandbox recreation behavior. Starting in version 2026.2.15, array ordering is preserved during hash normalization; only object key ordering remains normalized for deterministic hashing.
- 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 TechniquesAI
Insufficient information to map techniques.CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
V10.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces integrity verification of configuration data (including array ordering in sandbox hashes) so that changes trigger container recreation instead of reuse.
Requires maintaining accurate baseline configurations for sandbox parameters so that order-sensitive settings like dns/binds arrays are treated as distinct states.
Mandates controlled tracking and approval of configuration changes, ensuring the hash-based recreation decision reflects actual modifications to sandbox settings.
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 explicitly require constant-time string comparisons, directly preventing the weakness while also covering many other coding issues.
Vulnerability identification processes such as static analysis or code review can discover incorrect-granularity comparisons.
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 can detect timing side-channels arising from stepwise comparison logic.
Secure development lifecycle processes can require constant-time comparison functions to prevent timing side-channels.
Application security requirements can explicitly call for constant-time string comparisons in authentication and cryptographic code.
Secure system architecture principles can mandate constant-time primitives to eliminate timing side-channels.
Secure coding standards can require constant-time comparison functions to avoid stepwise string comparison vulnerabilities.
Secure authentication mechanisms can mandate constant-time comparisons, mitigating timing attacks from stepwise string comparison.