PicoclawApplication · Sipeed
CVE-2026-6987
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 detected in PicoClaw up to 0.2.4. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /api/gateway/restart of the component Web Launcher Management Plane. Performing a manipulation results in command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
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 injection vulnerability exists in PicoClaw up to version 0.2.4 within the /api/gateway/restart endpoint of the Web Launcher Management Plane component. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary commands through this API endpoint.
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
PicoclawApplication
<= 0.2.4CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 installed PicoClaw versionLocate the PicoClaw installation and check the version number in the software metadata, configuration file, or version banner. Common locations include the main application directory, a version info file, or the Web UI footer.Affected if The installed version is 0.2.4 or lower.
-
Verify Web Launcher Management Plane component is activeConfirm that the Web Launcher Management Plane component is running and accessible. Check the service status, enabled modules, or the list of active management interfaces.Affected if The Web Launcher Management Plane component is enabled and running.
-
Confirm /api/gateway/restart endpoint existsInspect the API routing configuration or attempt a local request to the /api/gateway/restart endpoint to verify it is registered and responding.Affected if The /api/gateway/restart endpoint is present and accessible.
-
Check for unauthorized access or exploitation indicatorsReview access logs, command execution logs, or audit trails for the /api/gateway/restart endpoint. Look for unexpected or suspicious request patterns that may indicate command injection attempts.
You are affected if PicoClaw version 0.2.4 or lower is installed AND the Web Launcher Management Plane with the /api/gateway/restart endpoint is enabled and accessible.
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 strict input validation and sanitization on the /api/gateway/restart endpoint to prevent command injection. Consider using parameterized commands or whitelist-based validation for any system commands executed by this functionality.
Fix this in Picoclaw
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6987 — 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-2026-6987 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