CVE-2026-10217
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA flaw has been found in nextlevelbuilder GoClaw up to 3.11.3. The impacted element is the function handleSave of the file internal/http/tts_config.go of the component RoleAdmin Gateway. This manipulation causes improper privilege management. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project tagged the reported issue as bug.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThe vulnerability exists in the handleSave function within internal/http/tts_config.go of the RoleAdmin Gateway component in GoClaw up to version 3.11.3. The flaw allows improper privilege management during save operations for TTS configuration, potentially enabling privilege escalation or unauthorized role modifications. Remote exploitation is possible.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify GoClaw installation and versionLocate the GoClaw application binary or package and retrieve its version number using the application's version command or by inspecting the binary metadataAffected if The installed version is 3.11.3 or lower (any version up to and including 3.11.3)
-
Verify RoleAdmin Gateway component is activeDetermine whether the RoleAdmin Gateway component is enabled in the GoClaw configuration or running as an active serviceAffected if The RoleAdmin Gateway component is enabled and accessible in the environment
-
Locate and inspect the handleSave functionExamine the file internal/http/tts_config.go and locate the handleSave function implementationAffected if The handleSave function exists in the codebase and is reachable via the application's HTTP endpoints
-
Check authorization logic in handleSaveReview the handleSave function code to determine if privilege/role validation occurs before performing save operationsAffected if The function lacks or has insufficient authorization checks before allowing role-related configuration modifications
-
Test endpoint accessibilityAttempt to access the handleSave endpoint with a low-privilege or unauthorized user account to verify if save operations can be performedAffected if Unauthorized or unprivileged users can successfully trigger save operations on role-related configurations
You are affected if GoClaw version 3.11.3 or lower is installed, the RoleAdmin Gateway is active, and the handleSave function lacks proper privilege validation before allowing role configuration changes.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade GoClaw to version 3.11.4 or later if available, and implement proper authorization validation in the handleSave function to ensure users can only modify configurations appropriate to their privilege level.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10217 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10217 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data