CVE-2026-35637
Openclaw ≤ 2026.3.22
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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-2026-35637 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 16th 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-2026-35637 is a timing vulnerability (CWE-696) in OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.3.22, where the software performs cite expansion before completing authorization checks for channels and direct messages (DMs). This allows cite work and content handling to occur prior to final authentication decisions, potentially bypassing intended access controls. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L), indicating high severity due to its network accessibility and lack of prerequisites.
Remote attackers require no privileges or user interaction to exploit this issue over the network with low complexity. Successful exploitation enables premature access or manipulation of content in channels and DMs before proper authorization validation, resulting in low-level impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Mitigation involves upgrading to OpenClaw 2026.3.22 or later, as detailed in GitHub security advisory GHSA-vfg3-pqpq-93m4 and the referenced fix commits (3cbf932413e41d1836cb91aed1541a28a3122f93, 630f1479c44f78484dfa21bb407cbe6f171dac87, ebee4e2210e1f282a982c7ef2ad79d77a572fc87). Additional analysis is available in the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-premature-cite-expansion-before-authorization-in-channel-and-dm.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21130
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw before 2026.3.22 performs cite expansion before completing channel and DM authorization checks, allowing cite work and content handling prior to final auth decisions. Attackers can exploit this timing vulnerability to access or manipulate content before proper authorization validation occurs.
- 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.