CVE-2026-32056: OpenClaw — HIGH

OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.22 fail to sanitize shell startup environment variables HOME and ZDOTDIR in the system.run function, allowing attackers to bypass command allowlist protections. Remote attackers can inject malicious startup files such as .bash_profile or .zshenv to achieve...

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

7.5 / 10

EPSS

N/A

Exploitation Status

No known exploitation

Sophistication

N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV Network

AC High

PR Low

UI None

S Unchanged

C High

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-2026-32056?

OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.22 fail to sanitize shell startup environment variables HOME and ZDOTDIR in the system.run function, allowing attackers to bypass command allowlist protections. Remote attackers can inject malicious startup files such as .bash_profile or .zshenv to achieve arbitrary code execution before allowlist-evaluated commands are executed.

Is CVE-2026-32056 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-32056 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-32056?

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

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-32056?

CVE-2026-32056 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (HIGH).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.22 fail to sanitize shell startup environment variables HOME and ZDOTDIR in the system.run function, allowing attackers to bypass command allowlist protections. Remote attackers can inject malicious startup files such as .bash_profile or .zshenv to achieve arbitrary code execution before allowlist-evaluated commands are executed.

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.