GHSA-29r9-67vg-qj56 CVE-2026-60087 PYSEC-2026-4265
PraisonAI: Human-in-the-loop tool approval is cached by tool name and silently reused for all subsequent calls with arbitrary arguments
- Severity
- 6.9 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.34%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.14% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
1.6.78- Upgrade praisonaiagents to this version or later
Description
Summary
PraisonAI gates dangerous tools (file writes, deletes, shell/code execution) behind an interactive approval prompt. The first approval of a tool is cached for the remainder of the run and silently reused for all later invocations of that tool with arbitrary, unreviewed arguments.
Root cause
ApprovalRegistry.is_already_approved (src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/approval/registry.py, around line 181) returns True whenever the tool name is present in a per-run context set. The cache is keyed on tool name only — arguments are not part of the key.
approve_sync / approve_async (around lines 224-226 / 278-279) short-circuit on that cache before the approval backend is consulted.
clear_approved (around lines 186-187) is the only routine that clears the cache, but it is never invoked in the shipped library (only in tests). The cache persists for the entire agent run and is inherited by child tasks via contextvars.
Critical-tier tools (execute_command, execute_code) are exempt from the cache. But high-risk tools like write_file are not.
Proof of concept
from praisonaiagents.approval.registry import ApprovalRegistry
from praisonaiagents.approval.protocols import ApprovalDecision, ApprovalRequest
class CountingBackend:
def __init__(self): self.prompts = []
def request_approval_sync(self, request):
self.prompts.append((request.tool_name, dict(request.arguments)))
return ApprovalDecision(approved=True, reason="human approved")
backend = CountingBackend()
reg = ApprovalRegistry()
reg.set_backend(backend)
reg.add_requirement("write_file", "high")
d1 = reg.approve_sync("agent", "write_file", {"path": "/tmp/safe.txt", "content": "hi"})
# Human prompted — approves a benign write
d2 = reg.approve_sync("agent", "write_file", {"path": "/etc/crontab", "content": "* * * * * root evil"})
# NO prompt — auto-approved from cache
assert len(backend.prompts) == 1
assert d2.reason == "Already approved in context"
Negative control: execute_command (critical) re-prompts on every call — 2 prompts for 2 calls.
Impact
A write_file approval for a benign path authorizes every later write_file call in the session with arbitrary arguments. A model steered by malicious input can write to sensitive locations with no further human prompt.
Suggested fix
- Include arguments in the approval cache key, or re-prompt on argument change.
- Expire the cache per-call or per-turn.
- Do not inherit the cache into child tasks.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonaiagents | < 1.6.78 |
1.6.78 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
praisonaiagents PyPI → 1.6.78
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonaiagents>=1.6.78"- poetry
poetry add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.78"- uv
uv add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.78"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 6.9
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 6.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-gxmw-5f7x-6g22 praisonaiagents vulnerable to arbitrary file write via unsanitized `user_id` in `FileMemory.__init__()` — path traversal to any writable location | High | Also affects praisonaiagents |
| GHSA-cfxv-8fw8-rwpv praisonaiagents: ast_grep_rewrite rewrites arbitrary files without the @require_approval gate enforced on every sibling mutation tool | Medium | Also affects praisonaiagents |
| GHSA-x44h-65qv-cw74 praisonaiagents has an SSRF protection bypass in `spider_tools._host_is_blocked()` via DNS-resolved hostnames (`127.0.0.1.nip.io`) | High | Also affects praisonaiagents |
| GHSA-7g3p-92qq-8wvh praisonaiagents: AgentServer declares auth_token but never enforces it on any route | High | Also affects praisonaiagents |
| GHSA-5r34-2g38-6569 praisonaiagents web_crawl vulnerable to SSRF via redirect-following | High | Also affects praisonaiagents |
| GHSA-vg6p-v9vm-6fgj praisonaiagents vulnerable to SSRF in web_crawl tool via redirect-following and DNS rebinding (validate-then-fetch gap) | High | Also affects praisonaiagents |
| GHSA-8hjw-25cg-g52h praisonaiagents has a `web_crawl` SSRF protection bypass via unchecked redirect targets | High | Also affects praisonaiagents |
| GHSA-hxmv-c4g6-5fqc PraisonAI workflow include bypasses tools.py autoload opt-in and executes included recipe code | High | Also affects praisonaiagents |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor