Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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-2026-28393 is a high-severity Path Traversal (CWE-22) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 36th 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 AC-3 (Access 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.
OpenClaw versions 2.0.0-beta3 prior to 2026.2.14 are affected by CVE-2026-28393, a path traversal vulnerability (CWE-22) in the hook transform module loading functionality. The vulnerability arises because the hooks.mappings[].transform.module parameter improperly accepts absolute paths and traversal sequences, enabling the loading and execution of arbitrary JavaScript modules. Published on 2026-03-05, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.7 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N), indicating high confidentiality and integrity impacts with no availability disruption.
Attackers with configuration write access can exploit this issue locally with low complexity and no user interaction. By supplying malicious paths in the transform.module parameter, they can load arbitrary JavaScript modules that execute with the privileges of the gateway process, potentially leading to unauthorized access, data manipulation, or further compromise within the OpenClaw environment.
Mitigation involves upgrading to OpenClaw version 2026.2.14 or later, where the vulnerability is addressed. Relevant patches are detailed in GitHub commits 18e8bd68c5015a894f999c6d5e6e32468965bfb5 and a0361b8ba959e8506dc79d638b6e6a00d12887e4. Additional guidance appears in the OpenClaw security advisory GHSA-7xhj-55q9-pc3m and the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-beta-arbitrary-javascript-module-loading-via-hook-transform-path-traversal.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9893
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions 2.0.0-beta3 prior to 2026.2.14 contain a path traversal vulnerability in hook transform module loading that allows arbitrary JavaScript execution. The hooks.mappings[].transform.module parameter accepts absolute paths and traversal sequences, enabling attackers with configuration write access to load and execute…
more
malicious modules with gateway process privileges.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces the intended directory access authorizations that path traversal would otherwise bypass.
Input validation directly neutralizes special path elements before pathname construction occurs.
Least privilege reduces the impact of any unauthorized file access obtained via traversal.
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.
Patching/maintenance can remediate known path-traversal flaws in deployed software (partial prevention of exploitability) but does nothing to stop the coding defect from being introduced in the first place.
PR.AA-05 defines and reviews access policies but does not address code-level pathname neutralization, so neither direction prevents CWE-22.
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 in development catches path traversal via static/dynamic analysis.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and path sanitization that directly prevent path traversal.
Application security requirements include rules for safe file handling and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles require least-privilege file access and directory isolation.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe path construction and mandate safe APIs.
Information access restriction limits which files an application may read or write.