CVE-2026-32036
MEDIUMOpenClaw gateway plugin versions prior to 2026.2.26 contain a path traversal vulnerability that allows remote attackers to bypass route authentication checks by manipulating /api/channels paths with encoded dot-segment traversal sequences. Attackers can craft alternate paths using encoded traversal...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
What systems are affected?
| Package | Ecosystem | Vulnerable Range | Patched |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenClaw | pip | — | No patch |
Do you use OpenClaw? You're affected.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
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-2026-32036?
OpenClaw gateway plugin versions prior to 2026.2.26 contain a path traversal vulnerability that allows remote attackers to bypass route authentication checks by manipulating /api/channels paths with encoded dot-segment traversal sequences. Attackers can craft alternate paths using encoded traversal patterns to access protected plugin channel routes when handlers normalize the incoming path, circumventing security controls.
Is CVE-2026-32036 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-32036 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-32036?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-32036?
CVE-2026-32036 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.5 (MEDIUM).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
OpenClaw gateway plugin versions prior to 2026.2.26 contain a path traversal vulnerability that allows remote attackers to bypass route authentication checks by manipulating /api/channels paths with encoded dot-segment traversal sequences. Attackers can craft alternate paths using encoded traversal patterns to access protected plugin channel routes when handlers normalize the incoming path, circumventing security controls.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-289 — Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name: The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
- [Architecture and Design] Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
- [Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N References
Timeline
Related Vulnerabilities
CVE-2026-33579 9.9 Analysis pending
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-32922 9.9 Analysis pending
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-30741 9.8 OpenClaw: RCE via request-side prompt injection
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-53838 9.8 OpenClaw: approval scope bypass via reconnection state
Same package: openclaw CVE-2026-32038 9.8 Analysis pending
Same package: openclaw