dbcve.org
OpenclawApplication

CVE-2026-41395

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-28
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 2026.3.28 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
OpenClaw before 2026.3.28 contains a webhook replay vulnerability in Plivo V3 signature verification that canonicalizes query ordering for signatures but hashes raw URLs for replay detection. Attackers can reorder query parameters to bypass replay cache detection and trigger duplicate voice-call processing with a captured valid signed webhook.

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 confidence

OpenClaw before 2026.3.28 has a webhook replay vulnerability in Plivo V3 signature verification where query parameter ordering is canonicalized for signature validation but raw URL hashing is used for replay detection. This inconsistency allows attackers to reorder query parameters to bypass the replay cache and reprocess captured valid signed webhooks for duplicate voice-call processing.

MitigationUpgrade to OpenClaw version 2026.3.28 or later which fixes the URL canonicalization inconsistency between signature verification and replay detection.

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
OpenclawApplication
Affected:< 2026.3.28

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
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify OpenClaw version
    Locate the installed OpenClaw package and retrieve its version number, typically found in package metadata, a version file, or via a version command (e.g., openclaw --version or package manager query).
    Affected if The installed version is earlier than 2026.3.28 (any version < 2026.3.28 is vulnerable).
  2. Confirm Plivo V3 integration is in use
    Inspect the OpenClaw configuration files or webhook endpoint settings to determine whether the Plivo V3 signature verification module is enabled. Look for Plivo-related configuration sections, environment variables, or webhook handler registrations.
    Affected if Plivo V3 webhook handling is configured and active in the environment.
  3. Examine URL canonicalization handling
    Review the code or configuration related to webhook signature verification and replay detection. Specifically inspect how query parameters are processed: check if signature validation uses canonicalized parameter ordering while replay detection uses raw URL hashing.
    Affected if The signature verification path and replay detection path handle URL query parameter ordering differently (one canonicalizes, the other does not).
  4. Verify replay cache mechanism
    Inspect the replay detection implementation to confirm it uses raw URL hashing (without parameter ordering normalization) to check for duplicate webhook requests.
    Affected if The replay cache uses raw URL string hashing for duplicate detection, allowing reordered query parameters to bypass the cache.

You are affected if OpenClaw version is below 2026.3.28 AND the Plivo V3 webhook signature verification feature is enabled, with inconsistent URL handling between signature validation and replay detection.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 2026.3.28 or later
Fixed in 2026.3.28
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to OpenClaw version 2026.3.28 or later which fixes the URL canonicalization inconsistency between signature verification and replay detection.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

OpenClaw 2026.3.28

  1. Identify all OpenClaw installations running versions before 2026.3.28 that handle Plivo V3 webhooks
  2. Review current Plivo webhook configuration to understand the signature verification implementation
  3. Upgrade OpenClaw to version 2026.3.28 or later to obtain the fixed signature verification logic
  4. After upgrade, verify that Plivo V3 signature verification is functioning correctly
  5. Test replay attack prevention by confirming that reordered query parameters on captured webhooks are now properly detected as replays
  6. Monitor webhook processing logs to ensure duplicate voice-call processing is no longer occurring

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Openclaw Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get the upgrade done

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41395 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-41395 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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