CVE-2026-41402
Openclaw ≤ 2026.3.31
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/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-2026-41402 is a low-severity Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference (CWE-706) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 2.3 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26109
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw before 2026.3.31 contains a scope bypass vulnerability in webhook replay cache deduplication that allows authenticated attackers to replay messages across sibling targets using the same messageId. Attackers can exploit overly broad cache keying to bypass replay protection and deliver…
more
duplicate webhook messages to unintended targets.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Vulnerability in webhook replay cache directly enables exploitation of a public-facing application to bypass replay protections and deliver duplicate messages.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces proper scoping of message flows so that replay cache decisions cannot send duplicates across sibling targets.
Enforces access decisions using the correct target identity in addition to messageId, blocking the scope-bypass replay.
Monitors for duplicate webhook deliveries that indicate the replay-cache keying failure has been exploited.
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-development practices directly prevent incorrect name/reference resolution bugs during coding.
Enforced authorization boundaries limit damage from an incorrectly resolved reference.
Logical segmentation and access controls reduce the chance an out-of-sphere resolution succeeds.
Hardened configuration baselines can constrain allowable name-to-resource mappings.
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 incorrect name or reference resolution through fuzzing and negative test cases.
Network segmentation and routing policies reduce the chance that a mis-resolved name leads to an unintended external resource.
Segregated networks limit the blast radius when a name or reference resolves outside the intended control sphere.
Secure SDLC practices include design reviews that can catch incorrect name or reference handling before deployment.
Application security requirements can mandate validation of all external references and names used at runtime.
Secure architecture principles discourage reliance on ambient or globally-resolvable names without explicit scoping.