Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/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-2026-32052 is a medium-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 43% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-32052 is a command injection vulnerability affecting OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.24, specifically in the system.run shell-wrapper component. The flaw allows attackers to execute hidden commands by injecting positional argv carriers after inline shell payloads, enabling them to craft misleading approval text while bypassing display context validation. It is rated with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.4 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H) and is associated with CWE-436 (Interpretation Conflict) and CWE-77 (Command Injection).
Attackers with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability over the network, though it requires high attack complexity and user interaction. Successful exploitation allows arbitrary command execution, resulting in high integrity and availability impacts but no confidentiality impact.
Mitigation is addressed in OpenClaw GitHub commits 0f0a680d3df81739ea5088a2f88e65f938b7936b and 55cf92578d266987e390c4bf688196af98eac748, along with the GHSA-6rcp-vxwf-3mfp security advisory and a detailed analysis from VulnCheck at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-hidden-command-execution-via-shell-wrapper-positional-argv-carriers. Users should upgrade to OpenClaw 2026.2.24 or later to patch the issue.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13951
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.24 contain a command injection vulnerability in the system.run shell-wrapper that allows attackers to execute hidden commands by injecting positional argv carriers after inline shell payloads. Attackers can craft misleading approval text while executing arbitrary commands…
more
through trailing positional arguments that bypass display context validation.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where two products interpret the same inputs or state transitions differently.
Strict, consistently applied input validation reduces the chance that one product will accept data the other product rejects or interprets differently.
Applying security engineering principles during design can require unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that eliminate divergent interpretations between products.
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 reduce the chance of introducing parser or state-machine inconsistencies.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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 coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing can detect and correct cases where one component misinterprets another’s state or messages.
Secure development lifecycle can require consistent interface contracts and canonicalization rules that reduce interpretation conflicts between components.
Explicit application security requirements can mandate unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that prevent divergent interpretations.
Secure architecture principles include well-defined component boundaries and shared data models that limit conflicting state perceptions.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.