Skip to content

GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65 CVE-2026-47414 PYSEC-2026-2929

praisonai-platform: Label endpoints' unchecked label_id/issue_id enable cross-workspace label IDOR (edit, delete, link)

High PyPI
Severity
7.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.38%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.52% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Fix
0.1.4
Upgrade praisonai-platform to this version or later

Description

Summary

Type: Insecure Direct Object Reference. Five label endpoints — PATCH /workspaces/{workspace_id}/labels/{label_id}, DELETE .../labels/{label_id}, POST .../issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}, DELETE .../issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}, GET .../issues/{issue_id}/labels — gate access on require_workspace_member(workspace_id) only and pass URL-supplied label_id and issue_id straight through to LabelService without verifying either belongs to the workspace. File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py, lines 35-100; route handlers at src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/labels.py, lines 42-106. Root cause: identical pattern to the agent / issue / project / comment IDORs in this codebase: the route's workspace_id is used as a membership predicate but never threaded through to the service layer. LabelService.get(label_id) runs session.get(IssueLabel, label_id) with no workspace filter; update/delete inherit the gap; add_to_issue(issue_id, label_id) and remove_from_issue(issue_id, label_id) write/delete association rows without verifying either ID belongs to the membership-checked workspace; list_for_issue(issue_id) reads them.

Affected Code

File 1: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py, lines 35-100.

class LabelService:
    ...

    async def get(self, label_id: str) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
        return await self._session.get(IssueLabel, label_id)         # <-- BUG: no workspace_id predicate

    async def update(
        self,
        label_id: str,
        ...
    ) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
        label = await self.get(label_id)                             # <-- inherits the gap
        ...

    async def delete(self, label_id: str) -> bool:
        label = await self.get(label_id)                             # <-- inherits the gap
        ...

    async def add_to_issue(self, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
        # writes a row in issue_label association table; no workspace check on either id

    async def remove_from_issue(self, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
        # deletes from association table; no workspace check on either id

    async def list_for_issue(self, issue_id: str) -> list[IssueLabel]:
        # reads from association table; no workspace check on issue_id

File 2: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/labels.py, lines 42-106.

@router.patch("/labels/{label_id}", response_model=LabelResponse)
async def update_label(workspace_id: str, label_id: str, body: LabelUpdate, ...):
    svc = LabelService(session)
    label = await svc.update(label_id, body.name, body.color)        # <-- writes any label in the DB
    ...

@router.delete("/labels/{label_id}", ...)
async def delete_label(workspace_id: str, label_id: str, ...):
    deleted = await svc.delete(label_id)                             # <-- deletes any label in the DB
    ...

@router.post("/issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}", ...)
async def add_label_to_issue(workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, label_id: str, ...):
    await svc.add_to_issue(issue_id, label_id)                       # <-- attaches any label to any issue cross-workspace

@router.delete("/issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}", ...)
async def remove_label_from_issue(workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, label_id: str, ...):
    await svc.remove_from_issue(issue_id, label_id)                  # <-- detaches any label from any issue cross-workspace

@router.get("/issues/{issue_id}/labels", ...)
async def list_issue_labels(workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, ...):
    labels = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id)                      # <-- reads label assignments for any issue

Why it's wrong: the workspace_id URL segment is treated as a UI hint; the actual label_id and issue_id lookups query the database without a workspace constraint. The MemberService in this same codebase uses a composite key correctly; the label service does not. The add_to_issue and remove_from_issue paths are particularly nasty because they touch two unverified IDs at once: an attacker can attach a foreign workspace's label to a foreign workspace's issue (or detach the legitimate labels), corrupting both sides of an association the attacker has no business touching.

Exploit Chain

  1. Attacker registers a workspace W_attacker (member) and harvests a foreign-workspace label_id L_T and a foreign-workspace issue_id I_T. Both leak via list_labels responses (which include label IDs — but only for W_attacker; for the target the IDs come from issue records that include label associations, activity feeds, exported dumps, error messages). State: attacker holds L_T and I_T.
  2. Attacker authenticates and sends PATCH /workspaces/W_attacker/labels/L_T with {"name": "<deleted>", "color": "#000000"}. require_workspace_member(W_attacker, attacker) passes. LabelService.update(L_T, ...) loads the foreign label and renames it. State: every issue across the foreign workspace that bears this label now displays the attacker-chosen name and colour.
  3. Attacker sends DELETE /workspaces/W_attacker/labels/L_T. LabelService.delete(L_T) deletes the foreign label, dropping every issue-label association row that referenced it (cascade or orphan, depending on schema). State: foreign workspace's labels are gone or corrupted.
  4. Attacker sends POST /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/labels/L_T2 to attach foreign label L_T2 to foreign issue I_T. LabelService.add_to_issue(I_T, L_T2) writes the association row regardless of either ID's workspace. State: the foreign issue now carries an arbitrary attacker-chosen label, which surfaces in every filter/search/board view in the foreign workspace's UI.
  5. Attacker sends DELETE /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/labels/L_legit to strip the legitimate label off the foreign issue. State: triagers can no longer find the issue via label filters.
  6. Attacker sends GET /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/labels to read the current label set on any foreign issue. State: the attacker fingerprints the foreign workspace's triage taxonomy.
  7. Final state: with one workspace-member token plus harvested foreign IDs, the attacker rewrites and deletes other workspaces' labels, attaches/detaches arbitrary labels on other workspaces' issues, and reads triage state across the deployment.

Security Impact

Severity: sec-moderate. CVSS 6.3: network attack, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, scope unchanged. The integrity damage is high (rename/delete of foreign labels is permanent and silent; cross-workspace label-attachment corrupts UI filters), confidentiality is low (label names are not the most sensitive field but do leak triage taxonomy), availability low (foreign workspaces may lose triage visibility into their own issues until the labels are restored). Attacker capability: rename and delete any label in the multi-tenant deployment; attach any label to any issue; detach any label from any issue; list label assignments for any issue. Combined with the companion IssueService IDOR (separate advisory), the attacker can also modify the underlying issue, making the cross-workspace tampering very difficult to detect. Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; the attacker has any membership token; target IDs are known or guessable. Differential: source-inspection-verified end-to-end. The asymmetry between LabelService.list_for_workspace(workspace_id) (correctly workspace-scoped) and LabelService.get(label_id) / add_to_issue(issue_id, label_id) (no workspace check) confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, label and issue IDs that do not belong to the membership-checked workspace return 404, and the attacker cannot touch them.

Suggested Fix

Make every single-row label lookup take the workspace predicate; verify both issue_id and label_id belong to workspace_id for the association routes.

--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py
@@ -33,7 +33,12 @@ class LabelService:
         return label

-    async def get(self, label_id: str) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
-        return await self._session.get(IssueLabel, label_id)
+    async def get(self, workspace_id: str, label_id: str) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
+        stmt = select(IssueLabel).where(
+            IssueLabel.id == label_id,
+            IssueLabel.workspace_id == workspace_id,
+        )
+        return (await self._session.execute(stmt)).scalar_one_or_none()

-    async def add_to_issue(self, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
+    async def add_to_issue(self, workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
+        # Verify both ids belong to workspace_id before writing the association row.

Then update the route handlers in routes/labels.py to thread workspace_id through every call. The same single-key-lookup pattern is filed separately for AgentService, IssueService, ProjectService, and CommentService — each is its own exploitable IDOR.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai-platform
< 0.1.4
0.1.4

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-platform PyPI → 0.1.4

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai-platform>=0.1.4"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai-platform>=0.1.4"
uv
uv add "praisonai-platform>=0.1.4"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.6

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

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

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xxgv-vgvj-qvxh
PraisonAI: Platform members can rewrite shared labels and owner issue labels without owner/admin authorization
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-c78w-2q4r-68r7
PraisonAI: Platform member PATCH routes allow owner resource rewrites and project lead reassignment delete bypass
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-mxmx-rh57-jx58
PraisonAI: Platform members can delete owner issue dependencies through member-owned related issues
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-2fjj-qqg8-fg7x
praisonai-platform: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Medium Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-cwj8-7gp2-ggcw
praisonai-platform: default JWT signing secret 'dev-secret-change-me' enables token forgery
Critical Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-f38v-77qj-h4jq
praisonai-platform 0.1.4 still boots on the hardcoded JWT secret dev-secret-change-me (default-open production guard)
Critical Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-rh39-9c67-59mh
PraisonAI: Missing ownership check on DELETE endpoints allows members to delete others' content in Platform API
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-7p8g-6c6g-h9w7
praisonai-platform: Agent endpoints accept any agent_id without workspace ownership check, cross-workspace read/update/delete IDOR
High Also affects praisonai-platform
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