CVE-2026-31994: OpenClaw — HIGH

OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.19 contain a local command injection vulnerability in Windows scheduled task script generation due to unsafe handling of cmd metacharacters and expansion-sensitive characters in gateway.cmd files. Local attackers with control over service script generation...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package	Ecosystem	Vulnerable Range	Patched
OpenClaw	pip	—	No patch
4 dependents 37% patched ~3d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use OpenClaw? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1

7.1 / 10

EPSS

N/A

Exploitation Status

No known exploitation

Sophistication

N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV Local

AC Low

PR Low

UI None

S Unchanged

C None

I High

A High

What should I do?

No patch available

Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-31994?

OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.19 contain a local command injection vulnerability in Windows scheduled task script generation due to unsafe handling of cmd metacharacters and expansion-sensitive characters in gateway.cmd files. Local attackers with control over service script generation arguments can inject arbitrary commands by providing metacharacter-only values or CR/LF sequences that execute unintended code in the scheduled task context.

Is CVE-2026-31994 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-31994 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-31994?

No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-31994?

CVE-2026-31994 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (HIGH).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.19 contain a local command injection vulnerability in Windows scheduled task script generation due to unsafe handling of cmd metacharacters and expansion-sensitive characters in gateway.cmd files. Local attackers with control over service script generation arguments can inject arbitrary commands by providing metacharacter-only values or CR/LF sequences that execute unintended code in the scheduled task context.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

CWE-78 — Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'): The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

[Architecture and Design] If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
[Architecture and Design, Operation] Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.