Skip to content

GHSA-ch89-h4r2-c8f8 CVE-2026-55540 PYSEC-2026-3888

PraisonAI: [Path Traversal] agent tools escape the configured workspace via symlinks

High PyPI
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.39%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 33.57% 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
4.6.58
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

Summary

PraisonAI's praisonai.code tool wrappers (exported as CODE_TOOLS for agents) expose a workspace setting that the module itself treats as a path-traversal security boundary — read_file, write_file, apply_diff, and search_replace explicitly call is_path_within_directory() and return "… is outside the workspace" on violations. That boundary is enforced unsoundly and inconsistently:

  1. The containment helper uses os.path.abspath(), not realpath()/Path.resolve(). A symlink located inside the workspace whose target is outside has an abspath() that is still inside the workspace, so it passes the check while open() follows the link. This bypasses read, write, apply_diff, and search_replace (CWE-59).
  2. list_files() resolves path against the workspace but never calls the containment helper at all — ../ and absolute paths escape directly (CWE-22).
  3. execute_command() takes a workspace argument documented "for security validation" but performs no cwd containment check; code_execute_command() resolves a relative cwd against the workspace and also never validates it (and never even passes workspace to the low-level helper). A relative cwd="../outside" runs commands from outside the workspace (CWE-22). An attacker who can influence an agent that has these tools attached (untrusted prompt, indirect prompt injection, or a server-exposed agent) can read, overwrite, list, and execute from outside the configured workspace, bounded only by the process user's filesystem permissions.

Technical Detail

1. Unsound containment helper (symlink bypass — CWE-59)

# src/praisonai/praisonai/code/utils/file_utils.py — is_path_within_directory()
abs_file = os.path.abspath(file_path)     # does NOT resolve symlinks
abs_dir  = os.path.abspath(directory)
if not abs_dir.endswith(os.sep): abs_dir += os.sep
return abs_file.startswith(abs_dir) or abs_file == abs_dir.rstrip(os.sep)

read_file/write_file/apply_diff/search_replace call this with the configured workspace (e.g. read_file.py: # Security check - ensure path is within workspace). Because abspath() does not canonicalize symlinks, a link at WORKSPACE/link_to_secret.txt → /outside/secret.txt has abspath WORKSPACE/link_to_secret.txt (inside) and passes, while open() follows it to the real outside target.

2. list_files() has no containment check (CWE-22)

# src/praisonai/praisonai/code/tools/list_files.py
if workspace and not os.path.isabs(path):
    abs_path = os.path.abspath(os.path.join(workspace, path))   # ../ collapses out of workspace
else:
    abs_path = os.path.abspath(path)                            # absolute path used as-is
# ... os.path.isdir(abs_path) then listed. is_path_within_directory() is NEVER called.

3. execute_command() never validates cwd (CWE-22)

# src/praisonai/praisonai/code/tools/execute_command.py — workspace param doc: "for security validation"
if cwd:
    if workspace and not os.path.isabs(cwd):
        work_dir = os.path.abspath(os.path.join(workspace, cwd))  # ../ escapes; no containment check
    else:
        work_dir = os.path.abspath(cwd)
# subprocess.run(args, cwd=work_dir, ...)   # no is_path_within_directory() anywhere
# src/praisonai/praisonai/code/agent_tools.py — code_execute_command()
if work_dir and _workspace_root and not os.path.isabs(work_dir):
    work_dir = os.path.join(_workspace_root, work_dir)   # joins, never validates
result = _execute_command(command=command, cwd=work_dir, timeout=120)  # workspace not even passed

Note: execute_command rejects shell=True and runs shlex.split(command) via subprocess.run (no shell), so shell metacharacters (&&, >, pipes) do not work — but any binary still runs with attacker-chosen argv from the escaped cwd, which is sufficient to read/write outside the workspace.

The workspace is an intended boundary (pre-empts "by design")

The module asserts this control itself: read_file.py "Security check - ensure path is within workspace"; write_file.py "default workspace is cwd so relative paths cannot escape"; is_path_within_directory docstring "(prevents path traversal)"; execute_command workspace param "for security validation". The bug is that the asserted control is unsound (abspath vs realpath) and not applied to list_files/execute_command cwd.

Proof of Concept

Self-contained, local temp fixtures only; no network, no untrusted commands. Real praisonai.code agent tools were called.

workspace = /tmp/.../workspace      outside = /tmp/.../outside
[1] baseline plain ../ read           -> BLOCKED: "Path '../outside/secret.txt' is outside the workspace"
[2] symlink read  (in-WS link)        -> SUCCESS: returned "SECRET_OUTSIDE_WORKSPACE"
[3] symlink write (in-WS link)        -> SUCCESS: outside file now contains "OVERWRITTEN_VIA_SYMLINK"
[4] code_list_files("../outside")     -> SUCCESS: "Contents of ../outside:  📄 secret.txt"
[5] code_execute_command(cwd="../outside","pwd") -> SUCCESS: stdout "/tmp/.../outside"
[6] code_execute_command(cwd="../outside", python3 -c open('planted.txt','w')...)
                                      -> SUCCESS: new file created OUTSIDE workspace, "PWNED_OUTSIDE_WORKSPACE"

Steps 2–6 each cross the configured workspace boundary; step 1 shows the plain-../ guard that the symlink and unscoped vectors bypass.

Impact

  • Confidentiality: read files outside the workspace (in-workspace symlink; or list/enumerate outside dirs via list_files).
  • Integrity: overwrite outside files via symlink; create/modify files outside the workspace via execute_command running in an escaped cwd.
  • Execution boundary: run arbitrary available binaries (argv-controlled) from a directory outside the workspace. Bounded by the process user's permissions. In a code-agent or server-exposed agent processing untrusted input, this exposes secrets / project-adjacent / host files and breaks the project-boundary integrity guarantee the workspace setting advertises.

Suggested Fix

  • Replace is_path_within_directory() with a realpath() / Path.resolve()-based containment check, and compare with os.path.commonpath() rather than startswith.
  • Apply that check consistently to every file path, directory path, backup path, diff/search-replace target, and command working directory, after full canonicalization (resolve the symlink's real target, not the link path).
  • list_files(): reject absolute paths and ../ escapes when workspace is set.
  • execute_command(): validate cwd containment when workspace is set; code_execute_command() should pass _workspace_root to the low-level helper or validate itself.
  • Regression tests: symlink read/write/diff/search-replace to outside targets; list_files("../outside", workspace=…); execute_command(cwd="../outside", workspace=…); absolute outside paths with a workspace set.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
< 4.6.58
4.6.58

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 → 4.6.58

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.58"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.58"
uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.58"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

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

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