CVE-2026-10218
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 vulnerability has been found in nextlevelbuilder GoClaw up to 3.11.3. This affects the function auth of the file internal/http/evolution_handlers.go. Such manipulation leads to improper authorization. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public 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 GoClaw application up to version 3.11.3 contains an improper authorization vulnerability in the auth function within internal/http/evolution_handlers.go. Remote attackers can exploit this to bypass authorization checks and gain unauthorized access to functionality or resources. The issue has a CVSS score of 5.4 (Medium).
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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 binary or application directory. Check for version information using 'goclaw --version' or review the application's startup logs for the version number.Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or is unknown, as no specific version ranges were provided in the CVE data.
-
Locate the affected source fileSearch for the file 'internal/http/evolution_handlers.go' in the GoClaw source code or application directory.Affected if This file exists in the GoClaw installation, indicating the vulnerable component is present.
-
Inspect the auth function implementationOpen evolution_handlers.go and examine the 'auth' function for missing or incomplete authorization checks before protected resource access.Affected if The auth function lacks proper authorization validation logic or contains conditional checks that can be bypassed.
-
Review access control configurationCheck GoClaw's configuration files (such as config.yaml, config.json, or environment variables) for role-based access control (RBAC) or permission settings.Affected if Authorization is not properly enforced or configured, allowing privilege escalation.
-
Test authorization boundariesIf you have access to the application, attempt to access resources or endpoints that should require higher privileges than your current role provides.Affected if You can access resources or perform actions outside your assigned permission level.
You are affected if GoClaw is running and the auth function in internal/http/evolution_handlers.go contains improper authorization logic that allows privilege escalation or unauthorized access.
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 to a version beyond 3.11.3 if available, or implement proper authorization validation in the auth function to ensure all requests are properly authenticated and authorized before granting access.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10218 — 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-2026-10218 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