CVE-2026-53820
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 2026.5.12 contains an exec denylist bypass vulnerability in the bundle MCP loopback session-spawn path that allows authenticated callers to bypass intended command restrictions. Attackers can reach the affected bundled MCP session-spawn path to start sessions with broader command reach than intended.
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 confidenceOpenClaw before version 2026.5.12 contains an exec denylist bypass in the bundle MCP loopback session-spawn path. Authenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability to bypass intended command restrictions and start sessions with broader command execution capabilities than originally allowed, effectively achieving privilege escalation through flawed command filtering logic.
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< 2026.5.12CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/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 OpenClaw installed versionRun 'openclaw --version' or check the package manifest/installed files for version metadata. On Linux check /usr/share/openclaw or similar installation directory for version file. On Windows check Program Files/OpenClaw for version info.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 2026.5.12 (e.g., 2026.5.11, 2026.4.x, etc.)
-
Verify MCP session-spawn module existsCheck if the bundled MCP (Management Control Protocol) loopback session-spawn component is present in the installation. Look for files related to 'mcp', 'session-spawn', or 'loopback' in the OpenClaw config or bin directories.Affected if The MCP session-spawn path is present in the installation and is enabled or configurable.
-
Inspect command denylist configurationLocate and read the command denylist configuration file for the MCP session-spawn path. This may be in openclaw.conf, mcp.conf, or similar configuration files under the config directory.Affected if A command denylist is configured but the MCP loopback session-spawn path can bypass it (requires comparing against known vulnerable behavior).
-
Confirm authenticated access scopeReview user authentication settings and session creation policies to determine if lower-privilege authenticated users can create MCP sessions. Check user role definitions and session spawn permissions.Affected if Authenticated users (especially non-admin or limited-privilege accounts) can initiate MCP sessions.
You are affected if OpenClaw is installed with a version lower than 2026.5.12 AND the MCP loopback session-spawn path is present and accessible to authenticated users, allowing potential command denylist bypass.
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 · scoped2026.5.12
Upgrade to OpenClaw version 2026.5.12 or later. Additionally, consider migrating from a denylist-based command restriction model to an allowlist approach for more robust access control.
OpenClaw 2026.5.12
- 1. Back up your current OpenClaw installation and configuration
- 2. Download OpenClaw version 2026.5.12 or later from the official repository
- 3. Stop the OpenClaw service if currently running
- 4. Replace the existing OpenClaw installation files with the new version
- 5. Restore your backed-up configuration files if needed
- 6. Start the OpenClaw service
- 7. Verify the installation by checking that the MCP loopback session-spawn path now properly enforces command restrictions
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53820 — 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-2026-53820 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