Vulnerability Database

328,409

Total vulnerabilities in the database

OpenClaw's andbox browser noVNC observer lacked VNC authentication

The sandbox browser entrypoint launched x11vnc without authentication (-nopw) for noVNC observer sessions.

OpenClaw-managed runtime flow publishes the noVNC port to host loopback only (127.0.0.1), so default exposure is local to the host unless operators explicitly expose the port more broadly (or run the image standalone with broad port publishing).

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: docker/openclaw
  • Affected: <= 2026.2.19-2
  • Patched: >= 2026.2.21

Technical details

  • scripts/sandbox-browser-entrypoint.sh used x11vnc ... -nopw for noVNC observer flow.
  • websockify exposed noVNC for the container listener.
  • OpenClaw runtime (src/agents/sandbox/browser.ts) already mapped host publish to loopback, but observer auth was missing.

Fix

  • Require VNC password auth in the sandbox browser entrypoint (x11vnc -rfbauth), replacing -nopw.
  • Generate per-container noVNC password in runtime and inject OPENCLAW_BROWSER_NOVNC_PASSWORD.
  • Emit short-lived noVNC observer token URLs instead of sharing raw noVNC passwords in shared URLs.
  • Keep loopback-only host port publish and bump sandbox browser security hash epoch.
  • Add security audit findings for sandbox browser containers that publish ports on non-loopback interfaces.

Operational note: rebuild the sandbox browser image and recreate browser containers so existing containers pick up the fix.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 621d8e1312482f122f18c43c72c67211b141da01
  • 8c1518f0f3e0533593cd2dec3a46c9b746753661

Release Process Note

Patched version is pre-set to the planned next release (2026.2.21). After npm release, this advisory can be published without further field edits.

OpenClaw thanks @TerminalsandCoffee for reporting.

No technical information available.

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.