Skip to content

GHSA-35w5-pcw4-jx94 CVE-2026-57128 PYSEC-2026-3528

PraisonAI: Unauthenticated Event Injection via SSE `/publish` Endpoint

Medium PyPI
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.25%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
Fix
1.6.59
Upgrade praisonaiagents to this version or later

Description

Summary

The SSE (Server-Sent Events) server in src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/server/server.py exposes a /publish endpoint that broadcasts arbitrary messages to all connected clients without any authentication. The ServerConfig dataclass (line 24) defines an auth_token field, but this token is never validated in the /publish or /events request handlers. Any attacker with access to the SSE server port can inject arbitrary events into the SSE stream visible to all connected clients, or use /info to leak server configuration including connected client count.

Details

Vulnerable code (lines 164–180):

async def publish(request):
    try:
        data = await request.json()
        event_type = data.get("type", "message")
        event_data = data.get("data", {})

        self.broadcast(event_type, event_data)

        return JSONResponse({
            "success": True,
            "clients": len(self._clients),
        })

The auth_token field in ServerConfig (line 31):

@dataclass
class ServerConfig:
    ...
    auth_token: Optional[str] = None

This auth_token is never referenced in any request handler. The /publish endpoint processes any POST request regardless of authentication headers. The /info endpoint (line 182) also has no auth and returns server configuration including self.config.to_dict().

Routes registration (lines 190–194):

routes = [
    Route("/health", health, methods=["GET"]),
    Route("/events", events, methods=["GET"]),
    Route("/publish", publish, methods=["POST"]),
    Route("/info", info, methods=["GET"]),
]

No authentication middleware or token validation is applied to any route.

PoC

Setup: Start the SSE server (default port 8765). This is the documented server mode for streaming agent events.

Positive trigger — unauthenticated event injection:

# From any network-reachable host:
curl -X POST http://localhost:8765/publish \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"type": "message", "data": {"text": "INJECTED: arbitrary content sent to all clients"}}'

Expected response:

{"success": true, "clients": 3}

The response confirms the injection was broadcast to all connected SSE clients, and leaks the number of connected clients.

Positive trigger — info leak:

curl http://localhost:8765/info

Expected response:

{
  "name": "PraisonAI Agent Server",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "clients": 3,
  "config": {
    "host": "127.0.0.1",
    "port": 8765,
    "auth_token": "***",
    ...
  }
}

Negative control — if auth were enforced: A request without a valid Authorization: Bearer <token> header should return 401 Unauthorized. Currently, it returns 200 OK with no auth check.

Cleanup: No persistent changes.

Impact

An attacker with access to the SSE server port (default 8765, bound to 127.0.0.1 by default per DEFAULT_HOST at line 21) can:

  • Inject arbitrary events into the SSE stream, potentially causing connected client applications to process malicious data, trigger actions, or display misleading content
  • Leak server configuration including number of connected clients and server settings via /info
  • Use the response to confirm connected client count, enabling reconnaissance

While the default binds to localhost, deployments in containers or cloud environments commonly override the host to 0.0.0.0 to allow external access. When the host is overridden, this is exploitable from the network without authentication.

Suggested remediation

  1. Validate auth_token in the /publish and /events handlers:
async def publish(request):
    token = request.headers.get("Authorization", "").replace("Bearer ", "")
    if self.config.auth_token and token != self.config.auth_token:
        return JSONResponse({"error": "Unauthorized"}, status_code=401)
    # ... proceed with broadcast
  1. Apply the same token validation to /events (for reading) and /info.

  2. The default binding to 127.0.0.1 is appropriate; maintain this default and warn when overridden to 0.0.0.0.

  3. Document the auth_token configuration option and recommend setting it in production.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonaiagents
< 1.6.59
1.6.59

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 → 1.6.59

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonaiagents>=1.6.59"
poetry
poetry add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.59"
uv
uv add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.59"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

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-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
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