CVE-2026-35627
Openclaw ≤ 2026.3.22
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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-2026-35627 is a medium-severity Incorrect Behavior Order (CWE-696) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 37th 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 RA-5 (Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning) — 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-2026-35627 affects OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.3.22, specifically in the handling of inbound Nostr direct messages (DMs). The vulnerability arises because the software performs cryptographic operations and dispatch processing on these messages before enforcing sender and pairing policy validation, violating CWE-696 (Incorrect Behavior Order). This misordered logic allows unauthorized pre-authentication computation, as scored at CVSS 6.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L), indicating network-accessible exploitation with low complexity and no privileges required.
Attackers can exploit this remotely without authentication by sending crafted DMs to any vulnerable OpenClaw instance exposed to untrusted networks. Successful exploitation triggers excessive cryptographic workloads and resource-intensive dispatch operations, leading to denial of service through exhaustion of CPU and other resources. The impact includes low-level integrity disruption (I:L) alongside availability impairment (A:L), potentially degrading service for legitimate users.
Mitigation is available via patches in OpenClaw commits 1ee9611079e81b9122f4bed01abb3d9f56206c77 and 630f1479c44f78484dfa21bb407cbe6f171dac87, which reorder validation ahead of computation. The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-65h8-27jh-q8wv) and VulnCheck advisory detail the fix, recommending immediate upgrade to OpenClaw 2026.3.22 or later for affected deployments handling Nostr DMs.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21112
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw before 2026.3.22 performs cryptographic and dispatch operations on inbound Nostr direct messages before enforcing sender and pairing policy validation. Attackers can trigger unauthorized pre-authentication computation by sending crafted DM messages, enabling denial of service through resource exhaustion.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages can discover incorrect ordering of related behaviors before deployment.
Vulnerability scanning may surface order-related weaknesses after code is built but does not address their root cause.
Mandating a documented development process and standards enforces review of behavior ordering within the software lifecycle.
Security and privacy engineering principles applied during design and implementation directly require correct sequencing of operations to avoid introducing order-dependent flaws.
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 enforce correct sequencing of security-relevant operations during design and coding.
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 ordering flaws but does not prevent them during development.
Secure development life cycle mandates correct sequencing of security activities, directly preventing incorrect behavior order.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require proper ordering of design and implementation steps.
Secure coding standards enforce correct execution order of security-critical operations.
Change management may catch order-related issues during reviews but does not address root cause.