What is CVE-2026-100600?

CVE-2026-100600 is ClawHub before 8c2de6c506 Quota Exhaustion via Anonymous API. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Denial of Service mapped to CWE-770 CWE-770.

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-2026-100600. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-100600 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?

2 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 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-2026-100600 using CVSS 5.3, 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.

mediumDenial of Servicepublic exploit

CVE-2026-100600

CVE-2026-100600 — ClawHub before 8c2de6c506 Quota Exhaustion via Anonymous API

ClawHub (the openclaw/clawhub application/backend) does not bind anonymous HTTP API requests to a trusted caller identity, so all direct anonymous API requests share a single default quota allowance. A remote, unauthenticated caller can drain that shared allowance and thereby deny or degrade API access for unrelated visitors. In addition, when the TRUST_FORWARDED_IPS option is enabled without an authenticated edge/proxy, clients can supply arbitrary forwarded IP headers to select quota identities of their choosing and evade rate limiting. The issue was confirmed at revision cbfee7343ddc867316dd9b3de6fa8856730f9f41; the complete historical affected range was not established. It is fixed in revision 8c2de6c506bb4efabe3f0c2ffb8370b9e23d4650 (PR #3684), where direct anonymous calls are redirected to the public API origin without consuming quota and forged identity assertions return HTTP 401. The npm CLI and OpenClaw runtime are separate products and are not affected.

Published Sep 26, 2026Updated Sep 26, 2026Sources: NVD, openclaw (CNA), GitHub

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

5.3

medium · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade clawhub to a fixed release (8c2de6c506bb4efabe3f0c2ffb8370b9e23d4650). 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	clawhub	0 to < 8c2de6c506bb4efabe3f0c2ffb8370b9e23d4650	Vulnerable
openclaw	clawhub	8c2de6c506bb4efabe3f0c2ffb8370b9e23d4650	Patched

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

Low

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

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
5.3	CVSS 3.1	medium	3.9	1.4	NVD, openclaw (CNA)
6.9	CVSS 4.0	medium	—	—	openclaw (CNA)

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

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-770

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

CAPEC-125 · FloodingCAPEC-130 · Excessive Allocation

T1498.001Network Denial of Service: Direct Network Flood
T1499Endpoint Denial of Service
T1499.003Endpoint Denial of Service: Application Exhaustion Flood

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.

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /clawhub, /backend), /proxy.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable clawhub.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 2 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

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 5.3 (AV:N)
Sep 26, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 26, 2026 · NVD

References

3 on the record

github.com/openclaw/clawhub/commit/8c2de6c506bb4efabe3f0c2ffb8370b9e23d4650
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/openclaw/clawhub/security/advisories/GHSA-4c7q-g7xf-5628
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/clawhub-before-8c2de6c506-quota-exhaustion-via-anonymous-api
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

openclawevery CVE for this vendor
Denial of Servicesame class
CWE-770other 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-2026-100600 is ClawHub before 8c2de6c506 Quota Exhaustion via Anonymous API, a medium vulnerability affecting clawhub 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-2026-100600. Public exploit evidence is: 2 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 5.3 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.