CVE-2026-32054
Openclaw ≤ 2026.2.25
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/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-2026-32054 is a medium-severity Link Following (CWE-59) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Path Interception (T1034); ranked at the 3th 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 AC-6 (Least Privilege) — 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-2026-32054, published on 2026-03-21, is a symlink traversal vulnerability (CWE-59) in OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.25. The issue resides in the browser trace and download output path handling, which fails to properly validate symlinks. This allows local attackers to escape the managed temp root directory by creating symlinks that redirect file writes to arbitrary locations on the affected system.
An attacker requires local access and low privileges (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U) to exploit the vulnerability. By crafting symlinks in the temp directory, they can route trace or download output writes outside the intended scope, enabling arbitrary file overwrites. This yields a CVSS base score of 6.5, with low confidentiality impact but high integrity and availability impacts (C:L/I:H/A:H).
Mitigation is addressed by upgrading to OpenClaw 2026.2.25 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed via commit https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/496a76c03ba85e15ea715e5a583e498ae04d36e3. Further details are available in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-36h3-7c54-j27r and the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-symlink-traversal-in-browser-trace-download-path-handling.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-13955
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.25 contain a symlink traversal vulnerability in browser trace and download output path handling that allows local attackers to escape the managed temp root directory. An attacker with local access can create symlinks to route file…
more
writes outside the intended temp directory, enabling arbitrary file overwrite on the affected system.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V15.4.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Proper enforcement of access authorizations on the resolved target resource stops a link from reaching an unintended object.
Least-privilege limits the damage an attacker can cause after following an unintended link.
Validating file-name inputs can reject or canonicalize names that resolve to links before access occurs.
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 code to validate paths and avoid unsafe link following.
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 can detect link-following flaws before release.
Secure SDLC practices can mandate link-resolution checks and canonicalization before file access.
Application security requirements can explicitly require safe handling of symbolic links and path traversal.
Secure architecture principles include input validation and safe file-access design patterns.
Secure coding standards directly address canonicalization and symlink attacks during implementation.
Access-control rules can limit which files are reachable, reducing exposure to malicious links.