Security1 distinct publisher3 min readPublished
Oasis Security says a malicious page can reach the unauthenticated API on port 11434 and poison every later conversation. NVIDIA's own source puts that bind on one platform path.
The Watch · Security desk

Compiled by The WatchSomething wrong?How this is made
The header-validation fix for this class of bug already shipped once. Ollama closed DNS rebinding against its API in v0.1.29 on March 14, 2024, and NCC Group published it as CVE-2024-28224 the following month, with the recommendation to validate the Host header on the server against a set of authorized values [18]. About 29 months later the same door is open, and not because anyone reverted the code [1]. The API on 11434 has no authentication and leans on two middleware layers to keep browsers out; when the bind address is not loopback, the Host check is skipped outright, and the CORS layer then reads Origin and Host as the same attacker-controlled domain and permits the call [13][14]. Where the attacker cannot serve their page on 11434 itself, rebinding covers it: their domain resolves to their server, then to 127.0.0.1, while the browser goes on treating the requests as same-origin [15]. A bind address decided which branch ran.
NemoClaw is NVIDIA's open source reference stack for running agents such as OpenClaw inside its OpenShell sandboxes, with Ollama as one supported local inference backend [5]. Its Ollama handling is not uniform. Non-WSL hosts get 127.0.0.1:11434 behind a token-gated reverse proxy on 0.0.0.0:11435, and onboarding restarts a daemon bound elsewhere back to loopback [9]. The Windows-host path is the one that sets OLLAMA_HOST=0.0.0.0:11434 so Docker Desktop containers can reach the daemon, with no authentication in front of it [11]. The question an operator has to answer is therefore not whether they run NemoClaw but which of those arrangements their install picked, and that is a question about a systemd unit and a Docker Desktop setting rather than a version string.
The project has moved on this already, in a way that shows the seam. Since v0.0.106 on August 10, the local Ollama proxy refuses to start against a backend that is not bound to loopback, exiting with a dedicated status code and telling the operator to put OLLAMA_HOST=127.0.0.1 on the Ollama systemd unit [22][23]. Fifteen days later that was still the default in the tree The Hacker News read [2]. But the guard is a property of the proxy, and the Docker Desktop on WSL path skips the proxy entirely, because the container reaches the host's loopback through host.docker.internal [10]. A check that lives in the component the exposed path does not run is not a mitigation for that path [3]. There is also an override, NEMOCLAW_OLLAMA_PROXY_SKIP_BIND_PROBE=1, for anyone who wants the older behaviour back [24].
The write lands below the API surface, which is why it sticks. The agent still supplies its own system prompt, and according to the report the planted instructions survive that and carry into later conversations [20]. Nothing in the agent changed, so restarting it or tightening its prompt leaves the stored template exactly where the attacker put it [4].
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Instructions planted this way persist across later conversations and survive the agent supplying its own system prompt, according to the report.
Oasis Security said: "The client cannot detect or prevent this - the template is a model-level property invisible to API consumers."
Oasis Security disclosed a weakness in NVIDIA NemoClaw that could let an attacker-controlled webpage take unauthenticated control of the local Ollama instance serving an AI agent and plant hidden instructions inside the model itself.
The findings were shared with The Hacker News ahead of publication, and the report says Oasis Security reported them to NVIDIA's Product Security Incident Response Team beforehand.
The findings carry no CVE identifier, no affected version range and no patched version, so an operator running NemoClaw cannot currently check whether their installation is in scope.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Detailed mechanism plus primary repo review, but unscoped and unreproduced
The chain is described step by step (unauthenticated 11434, skipped Host check, CORS same-origin, DNS rebinding, /api/create template rewrite) and the publisher performed its own primary check of the repository at a named commit, which both confirmed the v0.0.106 bind probe and found no chat-template integrity check. Against that, the disclosure has no CVE, no affected version range and no patched version, the report does not name the browsers, operating systems, NemoClaw version or platform path it was verified against, and the publisher's request for that detail was still outstanding at publication.
No deployment or exposure data
The sources give no install base, telemetry, number of exposed Ollama instances, or share of NemoClaw users on the affected Windows-host path, and no exploitation has been reported. The only concrete datapoints are version releases (NemoClaw v0.0.106, Ollama v0.1.29), which say nothing about how many deployed configurations are affected or mitigated, so adoption cannot be scored without inventing numbers.
Mildly overstated scope, partly deflated in-article
The framing that NemoClaw starts Ollama on 0.0.0.0:11434 is broader than the evidence supports: the same reporting places that bind on one platform path, notes upstream Ollama documentation recommends it for WSL2 and containers, and records a v0.0.106 default that refuses non-loopback backends. The disclosure also lacks a CVE, version range and stated test environment while resting on a rebinding class fixed upstream over two years earlier. The gap is only moderate because the article itself performs the deflation and correctly notes the mitigation cannot fire on the WSL paths where the wide bind is set.
Vendor research with pre-publication exclusivity
The findings originate with a commercial security vendor and were shared with a single outlet ahead of publication, an arrangement that rewards broad framing and named-vendor attention; the article also notes the vendor documented the same chat-template technique against another target earlier in the month and used a comparable browser-to-localhost path in February. Mitigating factors: coordinated reporting to NVIDIA PSIRT is stated, and the publisher independently reviewed the repository rather than only relaying the report.
Single publisher, one primary check, open vendor questions
Everything here comes from one outlet reporting one vendor's research, with no NVIDIA or Ollama response, no independent reproduction, and an unanswered request for the version and platform path tested. Confidence is nonetheless mid-range rather than low because the publisher verified specific repository facts at a named commit, quoted the proxy refusal text verbatim, and explicitly flagged what the report omits.
product
Nvidia's agent sandbox holds; the model server underneath it answers to any browser tab1 distinct publisher
build
AgentWorm's lesson: the agent is the malware runtime, not the payload1 distinct publisher
build
OpenClaw makes the channel the architecture, and the reasoning loop a lodger1 distinct publisher
build
A 284B model at 25 tokens a second on one 5090, and 192 GiB of DDR5 doing the quiet part1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 25, 2026