Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-53859 is a medium-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Openclaw Openclaw. Its CVSS base score is 6.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Masquerading (T1036); ranked at the 11th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-37161
Vulnerability Data
OpenClaw before 2026.5.26 contains a hostname validation vulnerability allowing attackers to bypass blocklist comparisons using trailing-dot notation in model or workspace-derived URLs. Attackers can exploit inconsistent hostname checks to reach destinations that operators intended to block through hostname policies.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.3.4V6.3.5V6.1.3V6.5.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Mandating that access-control decisions apply the full set of required rules to each request structurally eliminates missing-factor comparisons.
Access enforcement requires that every authorization decision evaluate all relevant entity attributes, directly stopping incomplete comparisons from being used.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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 include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Authentication decisions often rely on multi-factor comparisons; incomplete comparisons directly weaken this control.
Enforcing access policy requires complete evaluation of all relevant attributes; missing factors undermine authorization decisions.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
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 missing comparison factors, yet testing is only one part of the control's scope.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Application security requirements can mandate complete multi-factor comparisons, but the control is broader than this single weakness.
Secure architecture principles can require exhaustive entity comparisons, yet the control addresses many other design concerns.
Secure coding standards can forbid incomplete comparisons, but the control covers a wide range of coding issues.