What is CVE-2026-100567?

CVE-2026-100567 is OpenClaw before 2026.8.1 DNS Rebinding via CDP Hostname. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as SSRF mapped to CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-100567. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-100567 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, cloud metadata access logs, egress proxy logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-100567 using CVSS 8.2, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highSSRFpublic exploit

CVE-2026-100567

CVE-2026-100567 — OpenClaw before 2026.8.1 DNS Rebinding via CDP Hostname

OpenClaw is an agent gateway distributed as the npm package 'openclaw'. In versions >= 2026.4.5 and < 2026.8.1, the Gateway validated a single DNS resolution result for a configured remote Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP) hostname, but the raw WebSocket and Playwright transports performed a later, independent DNS resolution, discarding the DNS pinning enforced at validation time. An attacker who controls an approved CDP hostname or its DNS answers can exploit this check-then-use gap via DNS rebinding to make the Gateway connect to a loopback, private, link-local, cloud metadata, or other SSRF-policy-denied address. The impact depends on the remote CDP configuration, DNS timing, and the services reachable from the Gateway host. The issue is fixed in 2026.8.1; as a mitigation, disable hostname-based remote CDP endpoints or restrict them to trusted, stable infrastructure.

Published Sep 26, 2026Updated Sep 26, 2026Sources: NVD, OpenClaw (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

Not scored

FIRST has not published a score

Affects

OpenClaw

2 products listed

CVSS base

8.2

high · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade OpenClaw to a fixed release (2026.8.1). Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
OpenClaw	OpenClaw	2026.4.5 to < 2026.8.1	Vulnerable
OpenClaw	OpenClaw	2026.8.1	Patched

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

Low

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

High

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
8.2	CVSS 3.1	high	1.6	6	NVD, OpenClaw (CNA), GHSA
8.9	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	OpenClaw (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-664 · Server Side Request Forgery

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable OpenClaw.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPScloud metadata access logsegress proxy logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.2 (AV:N)
Sep 26, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 26, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-px74-p6x8-q327 published (high)
Sep 26, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

References

4 on the record

github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-p3h6-v2h4-36q2
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-before-2026.8.1-dns-rebinding-via-cdp-hostname
Vendor Advisory
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-100567
NVD
github.com/advisories/GHSA-px74-p6x8-q327
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

OpenClawevery CVE for this vendor
SSRFsame class
CWE-918other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-100567 is OpenClaw before 2026.8.1 DNS Rebinding via CDP Hostname, a high vulnerability affecting OpenClaw from OpenClaw. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-100567. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 8.2 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.