CVE-2026-35652
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-2026-35652 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 35th 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-2026-35652 is an authorization bypass vulnerability in OpenClaw versions before 2026.3.22. The flaw exists in the interactive callback dispatch mechanism, which permits non-allowlisted senders to execute action handlers. Attackers can exploit this by dispatching callbacks before normal security validation completes, thereby evading sender authorization checks and enabling unauthorized actions. The vulnerability is associated with CWE-696 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L).
Remote attackers can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low attack complexity, requiring no privileges, user interaction, or special setup. By timing callback dispatches to precede validation, non-allowlisted entities gain the ability to trigger action handlers, resulting in low-impact integrity and availability disruptions but no confidentiality loss.
Mitigation requires upgrading to OpenClaw 2026.3.22 or later. Patches addressing the issue are available in GitHub commits 630f1479c44f78484dfa21bb407cbe6f171dac87 and a47722de7e3c9cbda8d5512747ca7e3bb8f6ee66. Further details on the vulnerability and remediation are provided in the GitHub security advisory GHSA-8883-9w57-vwv6 and the VulnCheck advisory.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-21450
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw before 2026.3.22 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in interactive callback dispatch that allows non-allowlisted senders to execute action handlers. Attackers can bypass sender authorization checks by dispatching callbacks before normal security validation completes, enabling unauthorized actions.
- 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.