Skip to content

GHSA-892r-p3jq-jp24 CVE-2026-57116 PYSEC-2026-3507

PraisonAI: AgentOS remains unauthenticated after incomplete fix version and allows remote agent invocation

Critical PyPI
Severity
9.8 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.42%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.91% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
4.6.59
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

AgentOS remains unauthenticated after GHSA-pm96 patched version and allows remote agent invocation

Summary

PraisonAI's AgentOS FastAPI deployment surface remains unauthenticated in current main and in releases after the published patched version for GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x / CVE-2026-40151.

The public AgentOS advisory is published as an instruction-disclosure issue with affected versions < 4.5.128 and patched version 4.5.128. However, v4.5.128, latest release v4.6.57, and current main still register GET /api/agents and POST /api/chat without authentication. The chat route directly calls agent.chat(request.message). No-auth and wrong-bearer requests both execute the deployed agent.

This is broader than passive metadata disclosure. In any deployment where AgentOS wraps agents with tools, private context, memory, API integrations, or cost-bearing model calls, an unauthenticated reachable client can drive those agents.

Affected Product

  • Repository: MervinPraison/PraisonAI
  • Package: praisonai
  • Component: src/praisonai/praisonai/app/agentos.py
  • Config component: src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/app/config.py
  • Public advisory incomplete-fix reference: GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x / CVE-2026-40151

Confirmed affected dynamically:

  • v4.5.126
  • v4.5.128 (published patched version for GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x)
  • v4.6.9
  • v4.6.10
  • v4.6.56
  • v4.6.57
  • current main 2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1

Static source review found the same unauthenticated route pattern and 0.0.0.0 default in v4.2.1.

Suggested affected range: >= 4.2.1, <= 4.6.57.

Root Cause

AgentOSConfig / AgentAppConfig defaults the deployment host to all interfaces and has no authentication fields:

name: str = "PraisonAI App"
host: str = "0.0.0.0"
port: int = 8000
api_prefix: str = "/api"

AgentOS._register_routes() registers public agent metadata and chat routes without middleware, dependency, API key check, bearer-token check, or startup fail-closed guard:

@app.get(f"{self.config.api_prefix}/agents")
async def list_agents():
    return {"agents": [...]}

@app.post(f"{self.config.api_prefix}/chat", response_model=ChatResponse)
async def chat(request: ChatRequest):
    ...
    response = agent.chat(request.message)

A wrong Authorization header is ignored because the route does not inspect it.

Current main also has a root-export bug where from praisonai import AgentOS raises ImportError, but this does not mitigate the issue. The same class remains reachable through from praisonai import AgentApp and from praisonai.app import AgentOS.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

PraisonAI's security documentation says API servers were hardened so anonymous requests return 401 and default binding changed from 0.0.0.0 to 127.0.0.1 after the prior unauthenticated API server class.

The API Server Authentication docs say bearer auth is enabled by default, disabling auth is not recommended for production, and 0.0.0.0 should be used only behind an authenticating proxy.

The local PoV includes a hardened sibling control for the generated deploy API on current main. It returns:

  • no auth: 401
  • wrong bearer: 401
  • correct bearer: 200

AgentOS remains outside that control plane and still accepts no-auth and wrong-bearer /api/chat requests.

Local PoV

The PoV is local-only. It uses FastAPI's in-process test client, a stub agent, and a temporary file side effect. It does not start a network listener, call an LLM provider, or contact any external service.

Command:

env PYTHONPATH="artifacts/repos/praisonai-current/src/praisonai:artifacts/repos/praisonai-current/src/praisonai-agents" \
  uv run --with fastapi --with httpx --with flask --with flask-cors \
    --with pydantic --with typing-extensions --with rich --with python-dotenv \
    submission-bundle/praisonai-prai-cand-007-agentos-incomplete-auth-fix/poc/prai_cand_007_agentos_incomplete_auth_fix.py \
    --repo artifacts/repos/praisonai-current \
    --label current-head

Current-head result summary:

{
  "describe": "v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab",
  "head": "2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1",
  "agentos_vulnerable": true,
  "entrypoints": [
    {
      "entrypoint": "agentapp_alias",
      "statuses": [200, 200, 200],
      "side_effects": ["no-auth-marker", "wrong-bearer-marker"]
    },
    {
      "entrypoint": "direct_agentos",
      "statuses": [200, 200, 200],
      "side_effects": ["no-auth-marker", "wrong-bearer-marker"]
    }
  ],
  "deploy_api_control": {
    "control_passed": true,
    "statuses": [401, 401, 200]
  }
}

The three AgentOS statuses are for:

  • unauthenticated GET /api/agents;
  • unauthenticated POST /api/chat;
  • wrong-bearer POST /api/chat.

The side-effect list proves both unauthenticated chat requests invoked the agent method.

Minimal inline reproducer:

from pathlib import Path
from tempfile import TemporaryDirectory

from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
from praisonai import AgentApp
from praisonaiagents import AgentOSConfig

class StubAgent:
    name = "pov_agentos_agent"
    role = "tester"
    instructions = "private instruction marker"

    def __init__(self, out):
        self.out = out

    def chat(self, message):
        self.out.write_text(self.out.read_text() + message + "\n")
        return "PRAI_CAND_007_AGENTOS_EXECUTED:" + message

with TemporaryDirectory() as tmp:
    side_effect = Path(tmp) / "side_effects.txt"
    side_effect.write_text("")
    app = AgentApp(
        agents=[StubAgent(side_effect)],
        config=AgentOSConfig(host="0.0.0.0", port=8000),
    )
    client = TestClient(app.get_app())

    assert client.get("/api/agents").status_code == 200
    assert client.post("/api/chat", json={"message": "no-auth"}).status_code == 200
    assert client.post(
        "/api/chat",
        headers={"Authorization": "Bearer definitely-wrong"},
        json={"message": "wrong-bearer"},
    ).status_code == 200
    assert side_effect.read_text().splitlines() == ["no-auth", "wrong-bearer"]

Version Sweep

Target Result
v4.5.126 vulnerable
v4.5.128 vulnerable
v4.6.9 vulnerable
v4.6.10 vulnerable
v4.6.56 vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns 401/401/200
v4.6.57 vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns 401/401/200
current 2f9677abb vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns 401/401/200

Evidence files are retained locally under the bundle's evidence/ directory and can be provided if useful.

Duplicate / Incomplete-Fix Notes

This report is related to GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x / CVE-2026-40151. The published advisory describes AgentOS instruction disclosure and lists 4.5.128 as patched. It also mentions unauthenticated /api/chat as a chained instruction-extraction path.

The current report should be treated as an incomplete fix / affected-range correction with a broader demonstrated impact:

  • the published patched version v4.5.128 still reproduces;
  • latest release v4.6.57 still reproduces;
  • current main still reproduces;
  • the PoV proves unauthorized agent invocation and side effects, not only instruction disclosure.

This is distinct from private PRAI-CAND-003 / GHSA-x8cv-xmq7-p8xp, which covers praisonaiagents.AgentTeam.launch() routes. This report covers praisonai.app.AgentOS and AgentApp alias routes.

Impact

If an operator exposes an AgentOS app on a reachable interface, any client that can reach it can:

  • enumerate deployed agents through GET /api/agents;
  • read agent names, roles, and instruction snippets;
  • invoke the default agent or a named agent through POST /api/chat;
  • trigger downstream tools, private context reads, memory accesses, API integrations, browser actions, or other side effects attached to the agent;
  • consume model/API budget through repeated invocation.

The exact downstream impact depends on the deployed agents. The framework-level boundary failure is that a production deployment surface exposes agent control without authentication and defaults to binding on all interfaces.

Suggested Fix

Use the same security model already applied to generated API deployments:

  • add authentication fields to AgentOSConfig / AgentAppConfig;
  • default auth to enabled;
  • default bind host to 127.0.0.1;
  • reject no-auth and wrong-bearer requests for GET /api/agents and POST /api/chat;
  • fail closed for non-loopback binds unless auth is configured or an explicit unsafe development opt-out is set;
  • avoid returning instruction text from unauthenticated metadata endpoints;
  • add regression tests for no auth, wrong bearer, correct bearer, and external bind without auth.

Maintainers can either update GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x with the corrected affected range and broader impact or publish a separate incomplete-fix advisory.

Suggested Severity

Suggested severity: Critical.

The Critical score matches the unauthenticated agent-control model: network attacker, low complexity, no privileges, no user interaction, and high deployment-dependent impact when agents are connected to tools, private data, or cost-bearing services. If maintainers score only a minimal no-tool demo agent, the impact may be lower, but the current default framework behavior is still unauthenticated agent invocation.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
>= 4.2.1, < 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 9.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • 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: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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