CVE-2026-15625
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 was found in nextlevelbuilder GoClaw 3.11.3. Affected by this issue is the function ExecApprovalManager.CheckCommand of the file internal/tools/exec_approval.go. The manipulation results in incomplete blacklist. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.
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 confidenceA command approval bypass vulnerability exists in GoClaw 3.11.3 where the ExecApprovalManager.CheckCommand function uses an incomplete blacklist to filter commands, allowing attackers to bypass the restrictions by using variations or alternative commands not on the blocklist.
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 installation directory and check the version file or binary version information (e.g., goclaw --version, or check version.txt in the installation folder)Affected if The installed version is GoClaw 3.11.3 specifically
-
Verify ExecApprovalManager module is activeCheck the GoClaw configuration files (e.g., config.yaml, config.json) for the ExecApprovalManager setting or module enablement statusAffected if ExecApprovalManager or command approval feature is enabled in the configuration
-
Inspect the command blacklistLocate and read the blacklist file or configuration setting used by ExecApprovalManager.CheckCommand (typically named blacklist.conf, blocked_commands.txt, or defined in the config under approval settings)Affected if The blacklist exists but contains a finite list of blocked commands without coverage of variations or alternative command forms
-
Test for command variation bypassAttempt to execute known blocked commands using variations (e.g., alternative paths like /bin/sh instead of bash, or command aliases) through the ExecApprovalManager interface to see if approval is bypassedAffected if Commands not explicitly listed in the blacklist are accepted without requiring approval while similar commands on the blacklist do require approval
You are affected if GoClaw version 3.11.3 is installed with ExecApprovalManager enabled and the command validation relies on a blacklist that can be bypassed using alternative command forms.
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 dataImplement a comprehensive allowlist approach for command validation or expand the blacklist to cover known bypass techniques, combined with input sanitization and validation testing.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15625 — 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-2026-15625 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