GHSA-766v-q9x3-g744 CVE-2026-56078 PYSEC-2026-2943
PraisonAI has Memory State Leakage and Path Traversal in MultiAgent Context Handling
- Severity
- 8.7 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.92%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 60.14% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- CWE-668 Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
- Fix
1.5.115- Upgrade praisonaiagents to this version or later
Description
Summary
The MultiAgentLedger and MultiAgentMonitor components in the provided code exhibit vulnerabilities that can lead to context leakage and arbitrary file operations. Specifically:
- Memory State Leakage via Agent ID Collision: The
MultiAgentLedgeruses a dictionary to store ledgers by agent ID without enforcing uniqueness. This allows agents with the same ID to share ledger instances, leading to potential leakage of sensitive context data. - Path Traversal in MultiAgentMonitor: The
MultiAgentMonitorconstructs file paths by concatenating thebase_pathand agent ID without sanitization. This allows an attacker to escape the intended directory using path traversal sequences (e.g.,../), potentially leading to arbitrary file read/write.
Details
Vulnerability 1: Memory State Leakage
- File:
examples/context/12_multi_agent_context.py:68 - Description: The
MultiAgentLedgerclass uses a dictionary (self.ledgers) to store ledger instances keyed by agent ID. Theget_agent_ledgermethod creates a new ledger only if the agent ID is not present. If two agents are registered with the same ID, they will share the same ledger instance. This violates the isolation policy and can lead to leakage of sensitive context data (system prompts, conversation history) between agents. - Exploitability: An attacker can register an agent with the same ID as a victim agent to gain access to their ledger. This is particularly dangerous in multi-tenant systems where agents may handle sensitive user data.
Vulnerability 2: Path Traversal
- File:
examples/context/12_multi_agent_context.py:106 - Description: The
MultiAgentMonitorclass constructs file paths for agent monitors by directly concatenating thebase_pathand agent ID. Since the agent ID is not sanitized, an attacker can provide an ID containing path traversal sequences (e.g.,../../malicious). This can result in files being created or read outside the intended directory (base_path). - Exploitability: An attacker can create an agent with a malicious ID (e.g.,
../../etc/passwd) to write or read arbitrary files on the system, potentially leading to information disclosure or file corruption.
PoC
Memory State Leakage
multi_ledger = MultiAgentLedger()
# Victim agent (user1) registers and tracks sensitive data
victim_ledger = multi_ledger.get_agent_ledger('user1_agent')
victim_ledger.track_system_prompt("Sensitive system prompt")
victim_ledger.track_history([{"role": "user", "content": "Secret data"}])
# Attacker registers with the same ID
attacker_ledger = multi_ledger.get_agent_ledger('user1_agent')
# Attacker now has access to victim's ledger
print(attacker_ledger.get_ledger().system_prompt) # Outputs: "Sensitive system prompt"
print(attacker_ledger.get_ledger().history) # Outputs: [{'role': 'user', 'content': 'Secret data'}]
Path Traversal
with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as tmpdir:
multi_monitor = MultiAgentMonitor(base_path=tmpdir)
# Create agent with malicious ID
malicious_id = '../../malicious'
monitor = multi_monitor.get_agent_monitor(malicious_id)
# The monitor file is created outside the intended base_path
# Example: if tmpdir is '/tmp/safe_dir', the actual path might be '/tmp/malicious'
print(monitor.path) # Outputs: '/tmp/malicious' (or equivalent)
Impact
- Memory State Leakage: This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive agent context, including system prompts and conversation history. In a multi-tenant system, this could result in cross-user data leakage.
- Path Traversal: An attacker can read or write arbitrary files on the system, potentially leading to information disclosure, denial of service (by overwriting critical files), or remote code execution (if executable files are overwritten).
Recommended Fix
For Memory State Leakage
- Enforce unique agent IDs at the application level. If the application expects unique IDs, add a check during agent registration to prevent duplicates.
- Alternatively, modify the
MultiAgentLedgerto throw an exception if an existing agent ID is reused (unless explicitly allowed).
For Path Traversal
- Sanitize agent IDs before using them in file paths. Replace any non-alphanumeric characters (except safe ones like underscores) or remove path traversal sequences.
- Use
os.path.joinandos.path.realpathto resolve paths, then check that the resolved path starts with the intended base directory.
Example fix for MultiAgentMonitor:
import os
def get_agent_monitor(self, agent_id: str):
# Sanitize agent_id to remove path traversal
safe_id = os.path.basename(agent_id.replace('../', '').replace('..\\', ''))
# Alternatively, use a strict allow-list of characters
# Construct path and ensure it's within base_path
agent_path = os.path.join(self.base_path, safe_id)
real_path = os.path.realpath(agent_path)
real_base = os.path.realpath(self.base_path)
if not real_path.startswith(real_base):
raise ValueError(f"Invalid agent ID: {agent_id}")
...
Additionally, consider using a dedicated function for sanitizing filenames.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonaiagents | < 1.5.115 |
1.5.115 |
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 → 1.5.115
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonaiagents>=1.5.115"- poetry
poetry add "praisonaiagents>=1.5.115"- uv
uv add "praisonaiagents>=1.5.115"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 8.7
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- 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 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- 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: 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.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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].
- 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].
- 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.
- 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-185] provide this capability.
- 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: 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.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- 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.
CWE-668: Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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