Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-35636

Openclaw 2026.3.11 – 2026.3.25

Public PoC
Published
09 April 2026
Modified
16 April 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 7.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0026 18th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-35636 is a high-severity Incorrect Behavior Order (CWE-696) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 18th 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.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

OpenClaw versions 2026.3.11 through 2026.3.24 contain a session isolation bypass vulnerability where session_status resolves sessionId to canonical session keys before enforcing visibility checks. Sandboxed child sessions can exploit this to access parent or sibling sessions that should be blocked by…

more

explicit sessionKey restrictions.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-35652Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-35640Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-35637Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-35627Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-41297Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-43570Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-41298Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-41392Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-35626Same product: Openclaw Openclaw
CVE-2026-41375Same product: Openclaw Openclaw

Affected Assets

openclaw
openclaw
2026.3.11 — 2026.3.25

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

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.

finds

Security testing can detect ordering flaws but does not prevent them during development.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates correct sequencing of security activities, directly preventing incorrect behavior order.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles require proper ordering of design and implementation steps.

prevents

Secure coding standards enforce correct execution order of security-critical operations.

none

Change management may catch order-related issues during reviews but does not address root cause.

References