CVE-2026-36045
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 · uneditedpicoclaw <=v0.1.2 and earlier is vulnerable to OS command injection via the ExecTool component (pkg/tools/shell.go). The guardCommand() function attempts to restrict shell command execution using a denylist of 8 regular expressions, but the denylist is incomplete.
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 confidenceThe ExecTool component in picoclaw contains an OS command injection vulnerability in the guardCommand() function in pkg/tools/shell.go. The function attempts to block dangerous shell commands using a denylist of 8 regular expressions, but this blacklist approach is fundamentally flawed and incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass the restrictions and execute arbitrary OS commands.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Locate picoclaw installationSearch for the picoclaw binary or package in common locations such as /usr/local/bin/, $HOME/go/bin/, or via 'which picoclaw' commandAffected if picoclaw is not found on the system - not applicable
-
Identify installed versionRun 'picoclaw --version' or check the installed package version via package manager (e.g., 'go list -m all' if built from source)Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or is older than the patched version containing the fix for CVE-2026-36045
-
Inspect vulnerable source codeIf source is available, examine pkg/tools/shell.go and locate the guardCommand() function. Check if it still uses a denylist approach with regular expressions for command filteringAffected if The guardCommand() function contains a denylist array of regex patterns (8 patterns) for blocking commands rather than an allowlist approach
-
Check for ExecTool usage in configurations or logsReview application configurations, logs, or code that invokes the ExecTool component to see if shell command execution through guardCommand() is being usedAffected if The ExecTool component is actively used to execute shell commands, and the guardCommand() denylist is in place without additional input validation
A user is affected if picoclaw is installed with ExecTool enabled and the guardCommand() function in pkg/tools/shell.go still uses a regex denylist (rather than an allowlist) for command filtering.
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 dataReplace the ineffective regex denylist with an allowlist approach that explicitly permits only known-safe commands and arguments, or refactor to avoid shell invocation entirely by using direct exec calls without shell interpretation.
- 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-2026-36045 — 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-2026-36045 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