CVE Intelligence
Medium Integrity

CVE-2026-26327 — OpenClaw allows unauthenticated discovery TXT records to steer routing and TLS pinning

OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Discovery beacons (Bonjour/mDNS and DNS-SD) include TXT records such as `lanHost`, `tailnetDns`, `gatewayPort`, and `gatewayTlsSha256`. TXT records are unauthenticated. Prior to version 2026.2.14, some clients treated TXT values as authoritative routing/pinning inputs. iOS and macOS used TXT-provided host hints (`lanHost`/`tailnetDns`) and ports (`gatewayPort`) to build the connection URL. iOS and Android allowed the discovery-provided TLS fingerprint (`gatewayTlsSha256`) to override a previously stored TLS pin. On a shared/untrusted LAN, an attacker could advertise a rogue `_openclaw-gw._tcp` service. This could cause a client to connect to an attacker-controlled endpoint and/or accept an attacker certificate, potentially exfiltrating Gateway credentials (`auth.token` / `auth.password`) during connection. As of time of publication, the iOS and Android apps are alpha/not broadly shipped (no public App Store / Play Store release). Practical impact is primarily limited to developers/testers running those builds, plus any other shipped clients relying on discovery on a shared/untrusted LAN. Version 2026.2.14 fixes the issue. Clients now prefer the resolved service endpoint (SRV + A/AAAA) over TXT-provided routing hints. Discovery-provided fingerprints no longer override stored TLS pins. In iOS/Android, first-time TLS pins require explicit user confirmation (fingerprint shown; no silent TOFU) and discovery-based direct connects are TLS-only. In Android, hostname verification is no longer globally disabled (only bypassed when pinning).

Published Feb 19, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.1% (30-day exploitation probability)+0
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.12%
ahead of 2% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Openclaw
Openclaw
CVSS base
6.5
Medium · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Openclaw Openclaw).
  2. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (integrity), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Openclaw Openclaw < 2026.2.14 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Openclaw Openclaw version < 2026.2.14 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Adjacent
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.1 CVSS 4.0 High — — security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.1 CVSS 4.0 High — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
6.5 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 3.6 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-345 · Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.12%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Not enough vector or weakness data: use the affected application’s logs as a starting point.
application logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · openclaw/openclaw
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 6.5
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Feb 19, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Openclaw
every CVE for this vendor
Integrity
same class
CWE-345
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-62229 OpenClaw < 2026.5.18 Authorization Bypass via Glob Matching Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-62227 OpenClaw 2026.4.14 < 2026.5.26 SSRF via Browser Snapshot Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-62228 OpenClaw < 2026.6.5 Authorization Bypass via Node Exec Approvals Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-62221 OpenClaw 2026.5.12 < 2026.5.26 Authorization Bypass via allowFrom Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-62222 OpenClaw < 2026.5.22 Untrusted Plugin Loading via Setup-mode Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-62223 OpenClaw < 2026.5.18 Authorization Bypass via Device-pair Jul 16, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-26327 is "OpenClaw allows unauthenticated discovery TXT records to steer routing and TLS pinning", rated Medium. It affects Openclaw (Openclaw); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.12% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.