openclaw: Server-Side Request Forgery
CVE-2026-26322 is a high-severity server-side request forgery vulnerability in openclaw, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.6 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected openclaw versions: < 2026.2.14. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.37% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of openclaw you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- LowLimited modification of data is possible.
- Availability
- LowPerformance or availability is reduced.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Prior to OpenClaw version 2026.2.14, the Gateway tool accepted a tool-supplied `gatewayUrl` without sufficient restrictions, which could cause the OpenClaw host to attempt outbound WebSocket connections to user-specified targets. This requires the ability to invoke tools that accept `gatewayUrl` overrides (directly or indirectly). In typical setups this is limited to authenticated operators, trusted automation, or environments where tool calls are exposed to non-operators. In other words, this is not a drive-by issue for arbitrary internet users unless a deployment explicitly allows untrusted users to trigger these tool calls. Some tool call paths allowed `gatewayUrl` overrides to flow into the Gateway WebSocket client without validation or allowlisting. This meant the host could be instructed to attempt connections to non-gateway endpoints (for example, localhost services, private network addresses, or cloud metadata IPs). In the common case, this results in an outbound connection attempt from the OpenClaw host (and corresponding errors/timeouts). In environments where the tool caller can observe the results, this can also be used for limited network reachability probing. If the target speaks WebSocket and is reachable, further interaction may be possible. Starting in version 2026.2.14, tool-supplied `gatewayUrl` overrides are restricted to loopback (on the configured gateway port) or the configured `gateway.remote.url`. Disallowed protocols, credentials, query/hash, and non-root paths are rejected.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Server-Side Request Forgery
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
- If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in openclaw
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.3 High severity
- 8.3 High severity
Recent Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.5 High severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.