CVE-2026-35624: OpenClaw — MEDIUM

OpenClaw before 2026.3.22 contains a policy confusion vulnerability in room authorization that matches colliding room names instead of stable room tokens. Attackers can exploit similarly named rooms to bypass allowlist policies and gain unauthorized access to protected Nextcloud Talk...

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

4.2 / 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 Low

I Low

A None

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-2026-35624?

OpenClaw before 2026.3.22 contains a policy confusion vulnerability in room authorization that matches colliding room names instead of stable room tokens. Attackers can exploit similarly named rooms to bypass allowlist policies and gain unauthorized access to protected Nextcloud Talk rooms.

Is CVE-2026-35624 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-35624 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-35624?

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

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-35624?

CVE-2026-35624 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.2 (MEDIUM).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

OpenClaw before 2026.3.22 contains a policy confusion vulnerability in room authorization that matches colliding room names instead of stable room tokens. Attackers can exploit similarly named rooms to bypass allowlist policies and gain unauthorized access to protected Nextcloud Talk rooms.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-807 Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision

CWE-807 — Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision: The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.

[Architecture and Design] Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only. Ensure that the system definitively and unambiguously keeps track of its own state and user state and has rules defined for legitimate state transitions. Do not allow any application user to affect state directly in any way other than through legitimate actions leading to state transitions. If information must be stored on the client, do not do so without encryption and integrity checking, or otherwise having a mechanism on the server side to catch tampering. Use a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm, such as Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [REF-529]. Apply this against the state or sensitive data that has to be exposed, which can guarantee the integrity of the data - i.e., that the data has not been modified. Ensure that a strong hash function is used (CWE-328).
[Architecture and Design] Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. With a stateless protocol such as HTTP, use a framework that maintains the state for you. Examples include ASP.NET View State [REF-756] and the OWASP ESAPI Session Management feature [REF-45]. Be careful of language features that provide state support, since these might be provided as a convenience to the programmer and may not be considering security.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.