CVE-2026-41340
Openclaw ≤ 2026.3.31
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-41340 is a medium-severity Incomplete Internal State Distinction (CWE-372) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 20th 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 SC-24 (Fail in Known State) and AC-12 (Session Termination) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25324
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw before 2026.3.31 contains an authentication boundary vulnerability where Telegram legacy allowFrom migration incorrectly fans default-account trust into all named accounts. Attackers can exploit this trust propagation to bypass authentication controls and gain unauthorized access to named accounts.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Ensures the system enters a predefined safe state on failure, containing damage from any prior state-distinction error.
Forces sessions into a known terminated state, limiting the window in which an incorrect state assumption can be exploited.
Enforces access decisions that depend on correctly maintained internal state, making incorrect operations due to state confusion less likely to succeed.
Requires developers to produce security architecture and design artifacts that must address correct internal state management.
Mandates application of engineering principles (e.g., explicit state-machine design, fail-safe defaults) that stop incomplete state distinction from being introduced.
Requires protection of session state authenticity, directly reducing the chance that the system misidentifies its own session state.
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.
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 state-machine flaws that manifest as incomplete internal state distinction.
Secure development lifecycle practices can include state-machine validation and invariant checks that reduce incomplete internal state errors.
Explicit application security requirements can mandate state-transition validation and error-state handling.
Secure architecture principles encourage explicit state modelling and fail-safe transitions.
Secure coding standards can require defensive checks against invalid or ambiguous internal states.
Change-management procedures may indirectly catch state-related defects during release reviews.