Skip to content

GHSA-8579-rgg5-ph2m CVE-2026-56832 PYSEC-2026-3506

PraisonAI DiscordApproval accepts unrelated channel messages as dangerous-tool approvals

High PyPI
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.15%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 3.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-345 Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
4.6.59
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

DiscordApproval accepts unrelated channel messages as dangerous-tool approvals

Summary

praisonai.bots.DiscordApproval approves a pending dangerous tool call when it sees any later non-bot message in the configured Discord channel whose text is classified as approval, such as yes.

The decision is not bound to:

  • a Discord reply to the approval message;
  • a Discord thread created for that request;
  • a Discord interaction/button callback for that request;
  • an explicit approver user allowlist; or
  • an approval nonce visible only to intended approvers.

As a result, any user who can post in the configured approval channel can approve a pending high-risk tool call by sending yes after the approval message appears. The same local PoV also shows that the Slack and Telegram messaging approval backends have no explicit approver allowlist parameter, but the primary report-grade issue is the Discord backend's unthreaded channel cross-talk: the approving message does not need to be a reply or otherwise request-bound.

Affected Product

  • Repository: MervinPraison/PraisonAI
  • Ecosystem: pip
  • Package: praisonai
  • Component: Python messaging approval backends
  • Primary affected file: src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/_discord_approval.py
  • Related sibling files:
    • src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/_slack_approval.py
    • src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/_telegram_approval.py
  • Latest PyPI version validated: 4.6.58
  • Current origin/main validated: 1ad58ca02975ff1398efeda694ea2ab78f20cf3e
  • Current origin/main tag validated: v4.6.58

Suggested affected range:

pip:praisonai >= 4.5.2, <= 4.6.58

Representative local sweep:

4.5.0    Discord approval backend not present
4.5.2    vulnerable
4.5.128  vulnerable
4.6.9    vulnerable
4.6.10   vulnerable
4.6.56   vulnerable
4.6.57   vulnerable
4.6.58   vulnerable

Root Cause

DiscordApproval.request_approval() posts an approval message to the configured channel and records the returned message id.

_poll_for_response() then polls channel history with:

f"/channels/{channel_id}/messages?after={message_id}&limit=10"

For each later non-bot message, it reads content, classifies the text, and returns ApprovalDecision(approved=True) when the text is approve/yes. There is no check that the message is a Discord reply to the approval message, belongs to a request-specific thread, came from an intended approver, or contains a request-specific approval token.

Important source evidence from origin/main:

  • _discord_approval.py lines 57-73: constructor accepts token, channel_id, timeout, and poll_interval; no approver allowlist.
  • _discord_approval.py line 239: polls all messages after the approval message in the configured channel.
  • _discord_approval.py lines 252-265: skips bot messages, classifies the remaining text, and approves when the keyword is approve.

The Slack and Telegram backends are better request-scoped than Discord:

  • Slack uses conversations.replies for the approval message thread.
  • Telegram checks the callback/reply message id.

However, both still lack an explicit approver identity parameter. They are included in the PoV and suggested fix because the authorization model should be consistent across all messaging approval backends.

Local PoV

Run against the latest local checkout:

python3 poc/pov_prai_cand_029_messaging_approval_channel_member_bypass.py \
  --repo ../../artifacts/repos/praisonai-v4.6.58 \
  --json

The PoV is local-only. It mocks Slack, Telegram, and Discord API helpers in-process and does not contact those services.

For Discord, the mock sequence is:

  1. DiscordApproval posts a critical execute_command approval request to D_APPROVAL_CHANNEL.
  2. The mocked channel-history endpoint returns a later ordinary non-bot channel message from D_INTRUDER with content yes.
  3. DiscordApproval returns approved=True and approver="D_INTRUDER".

Observed output from evidence/pov-v4.6.58.json:

{
  "approval_from_unconfigured_channel_participant": {
    "discord": true,
    "slack": true,
    "telegram": true
  },
  "backends": [
    {
      "backend": "discord",
      "configured_channel_id": "D_APPROVAL_CHANNEL",
      "decision_approved": true,
      "decision_approver": "D_INTRUDER",
      "decision_reason": "Approved via Discord by intruder",
      "intruder_user": "D_INTRUDER"
    }
  ],
  "no_explicit_approver_allowlist_parameters": true,
  "vulnerable": true
}

The command in the approval request is a harmless local sentinel: touch /tmp/prai-cand-029. The PoV stops at the approval decision; it does not execute the tool.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

This report does not claim that a deliberately private approval channel with only trusted approvers is unsafe by itself. The narrower issue is that the Discord backend treats an unrelated later channel message as the approval decision for a specific dangerous tool request.

PraisonAI's approval documentation describes approval as a safety control that pauses before dangerous tools and asks a human or channel to allow or deny the specific request. A random later yes in the channel is not evidence that an intended approver reviewed that request.

The existing Slack and Telegram implementations already show request-binding patterns that Discord lacks:

  • Slack scopes to replies for the approval message timestamp.
  • Telegram checks the callback/reply message_id.

The Discord backend should provide at least the same request binding and should also support explicit approver identity checks for deployments where channel membership is broader than approval authority.

Impact

If an application uses DiscordApproval for dangerous tools such as shell commands, file writes, deletes, deployments, or other privileged operations, a low-privileged Discord user with write access to the configured approval channel can approve pending dangerous tool executions.

This can lead to code execution, file modification, deployment changes, or data access with the privileges of the PraisonAI process, depending on which tools the agent exposes behind approval.

The attacker does not need the LLM API key, shell access, repository access, or PraisonAI process access. They only need to be able to post an approval-looking message in the configured approval channel after the approval prompt appears.

Severity

Suggested severity: High.

Rationale:

  • AV: the attacker interacts through a networked Discord channel.
  • AC: sending yes after an approval prompt is enough.
  • PR: the attacker needs permission to post in the configured approval channel, but no approver-specific permission.
  • UI: no separate victim interaction is needed after the prompt exists.
  • S: the vulnerable approval backend and approved tool run in the PraisonAI application's security scope.
  • C/I/A: approved dangerous tools can disclose, modify, or destroy data depending on the configured agent tools.

Remediation

Recommended fixes:

  1. For Discord, require approvals to be tied to the request, not merely any later channel message. Use Discord interactions/buttons with opaque server-side request ids, or require a Discord reply whose message_reference.message_id matches the approval message.
  2. Add explicit approver identity configuration to all messaging approval backends, for example approver_user_ids or allowed_approvers.
  3. Reject approvals from users outside the configured approver set, even if the message appears in the configured channel.
  4. Include a per-request nonce or opaque approval id in callbacks and verify it server side before returning ApprovalDecision(approved=True).
  5. Add regression tests for Discord where:
    • an unrelated later yes in the channel is ignored;
    • a reply from a non-approver is ignored;
    • a request-bound reply/callback from an allowed approver succeeds.

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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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

Weakness

CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

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