Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-32034 is a medium-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 31th 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-2026-32034, published on 2026-03-19, is an authentication bypass vulnerability in OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.21. The flaw affects the Control UI component when the allowInsecureAuth option is explicitly enabled and the gateway is exposed over plaintext HTTP. It enables attackers to bypass device identity and pairing verification by exploiting the absence of secure authentication enforcement over unencrypted HTTP connections. The vulnerability is associated with CWE-78 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H).
Attackers with leaked or intercepted credentials can exploit this issue remotely over the network with low complexity and low privileges. No user interaction is required, allowing them to obtain high-privilege access to the Control UI, which results in high impacts to integrity (I:H) and availability (A:H) without affecting confidentiality.
Advisories recommend upgrading to OpenClaw version 2026.2.21 or later to mitigate the vulnerability, as detailed in the patching commit at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/40a292619e1f2be3a3b1db663d7494c9c2dc0abf. Further guidance is available in the GitHub Security Advisory at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-3cvx-236h-m9fj and the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-insecure-control-ui-authentication-over-plaintext-http.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13316
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.21 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the Control UI when allowInsecureAuth is explicitly enabled and the gateway is exposed over plaintext HTTP, allowing attackers to bypass device identity and pairing verification. An attacker with leaked…
more
or intercepted credentials can obtain high-privilege Control UI access by exploiting the lack of secure authentication enforcement over unencrypted HTTP connections.
- 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.