CVE-2026-34505
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 · uneditedOpenClaw before 2026.3.12 applies rate limiting only after successful webhook authentication, allowing attackers to bypass rate limits and brute-force webhook secrets. Attackers can submit repeated authentication requests with invalid secrets without triggering rate limit responses, enabling systematic secret guessing and subsequent forged webhook submission.
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 · high confidenceOpenClaw versions before 2026.3.12 implement rate limiting only after successful webhook authentication, creating a window where attackers can submit unlimited authentication attempts with invalid secrets without triggering rate limit responses. This allows systematic brute-force guessing of webhook secrets.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 2026.3.12CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 OpenClaw installationLocate the OpenClaw installation directory or check if the openclaw/openclaw package is installed on the systemAffected if OpenClaw is installed and used for webhook processing
-
Determine installed OpenClaw versionRun 'openclaw --version' or check the package version installed (pip show openclaw, docker image tag, or version file in installation directory)Affected if Version is less than 2026.3.12
-
Verify webhook authentication is configuredCheck OpenClaw configuration files or settings for webhook endpoints that require authentication (look for webhooks, auth, secret, or webhook-related configuration sections)Affected if Webhook authentication with secrets is enabled
-
Inspect rate limiting behaviorReview the authentication flow code or configuration to determine whether rate limiting is applied before or after credential validation. This may require examining authentication middleware, endpoint handlers, or rate limit configuration settings.Affected if Rate limiting is configured to trigger only after successful authentication rather than before credential validation
-
Test rate limit behavior with invalid credentialsSend multiple authentication requests with invalid webhook secrets to the webhook endpoint and observe whether rate limits are applied (requests should be blocked after N attempts regardless of credential validity)Affected if Rate limits are NOT triggered when using invalid credentials, allowing unlimited attempts
User is affected if OpenClaw version is below 2026.3.12 AND webhook authentication with secrets is enabled, with rate limiting occurring only after successful authentication rather than on all authentication attempts.
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.
dbcve · scoped2026.3.12
Implement rate limiting checks before authentication validation to block repeated invalid credential attempts and prevent brute-force attacks on webhook secrets.
2026.3.12
- Upgrade OpenClaw to version 2026.3.12 or later to obtain the fixed code where rate limiting is applied before authentication
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version
- Test webhook authentication with invalid credentials to confirm rate limiting is now enforced prior to authentication validation
- Monitor logs to ensure brute-force attempts against webhook secrets are now properly rate-limited
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-34505 — 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-2026-34505 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