Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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-2026-28460 is a medium-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 6.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) 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-2026-28460 is an allowlist bypass vulnerability in the system.run component of OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.22. The issue enables attackers to execute non-allowlisted commands by splitting command substitution using shell line-continuation characters. Specifically, attackers can inject "$\" followed by a newline and an opening parenthesis inside double quotes, causing the shell to fold the line continuation into executable command substitution that circumvents approval boundaries. It is associated with CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L).
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely over the network by attackers with low privileges, requiring low complexity and no user interaction. Exploitation allows execution of arbitrary commands outside the intended allowlist, resulting in high integrity impact through unauthorized command execution or modification, alongside low availability impact, but no confidentiality loss.
Mitigation is addressed by updating to OpenClaw version 2026.2.22 or later, as detailed in the patching commit at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/3f0b9dbb36c86e308267924c0d3d4a4e1fc4d1e9. Further guidance appears in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-9868-vxmx-w862 and the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-allowlist-bypass-via-shell-line-continuation-command-substitution-in-system-run.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13013
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.22 contain an allowlist bypass vulnerability in system.run that allows attackers to execute non-allowlisted commands by splitting command substitution using shell line-continuation characters. Attackers can bypass security analysis by injecting $\\ followed by a newline and…
more
opening parenthesis inside double quotes, causing the shell to fold the line continuation into executable command substitution that circumvents approval boundaries.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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 and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.