Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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-2026-28446 is a critical-severity Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm (CWE-303) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 9.2 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique External Remote Services (T1133); ranked at the 48th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2026-28446 is an authentication bypass vulnerability in OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.1 when the voice-call extension is installed and enabled. The flaw occurs in inbound allowlist policy validation, which incorrectly accepts empty caller IDs and performs suffix-based matching instead of strict equality checks. Published on 2026-03-05, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.4 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L) and is associated with CWE-303.
Remote, unauthenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity and no user interaction. By placing calls with missing caller IDs or phone numbers ending in allowlisted digits, they bypass inbound access controls, gain access to the voice-call agent, and execute arbitrary tools.
Advisories recommend upgrading to OpenClaw 2026.2.1 or later to mitigate the issue. Relevant resources include the fixing GitHub commit at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/f8dfd034f5d9235c5485f492a9e4ccc114e97fdb, the GitHub Security Advisory at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-4rj2-gpmh-qq5x, and the Vulncheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-inbound-allowlist-policy-bypass-in-voice-call-extension-via-empty-caller-id.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9896
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.1 with the voice-call extension installed and enabled contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in inbound allowlist policy validation that accepts empty caller IDs and uses suffix-based matching instead of strict equality. Remote attackers can bypass inbound…
more
access controls by placing calls with missing caller IDs or numbers ending with allowlisted digits to reach the voice-call agent and execute tools.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly uncovers incorrect implementations of required authentication algorithms.
Requiring documented development processes, standards, and tools reduces the chance that an established authentication algorithm is coded incorrectly.
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 correct implementation of authentication algorithms.
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.
Secure authentication control directly requires correct implementation of authentication algorithms.
Security testing can detect flawed authentication implementations but does not prevent them by itself.
Cryptography control addresses proper use of authentication algorithms but is broader than authentication alone.
Secure development lifecycle includes verification steps that can catch incorrect authentication implementations.
Application security requirements can specify correct authentication algorithm use but do not guarantee correct implementation.
Secure coding practices reduce the likelihood of incorrect authentication algorithm implementation.