Skip to content

GHSA-fc26-m9pf-v56q CVE-2026-56837 PYSEC-2026-3510

PraisonAI LinearBot processes unsigned webhooks when LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET is missing

High PyPI
Severity
8.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.19%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.42% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-287 Improper Authentication
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-347 Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
Fix
4.6.59
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

PraisonAI LinearBot processes unsigned webhooks when LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET is missing

Summary

PraisonAI's LinearBot starts a public webhook listener on 0.0.0.0 and treats LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET as optional. When the secret is absent, startup only logs a warning and _handle_webhook() skips Linear-Signature verification entirely.

An unauthenticated network caller who can reach the webhook endpoint can submit a forged Linear-Event: AgentSession request. The forged request is parsed, scheduled for background processing, dispatched to _handle_agent_session(), and passed into BotSessionManager.chat(). The bot then attempts to post the agent response back to Linear under the configured bot token.

The local PoV is offline and deterministic. It does not contact Linear. It calls the webhook handler directly, monkey-patches the outbound Linear comment path, and proves both sides of the boundary:

  • no secret configured: unsigned forged webhook returns 200, invokes the agent session path once, and attempts one Linear comment;
  • secret configured: missing and bad signatures both return 401 and do not invoke the agent;
  • secret configured with valid HMAC: request returns 200 and invokes the agent, proving the control path still works.

Affected Product

  • Repository: MervinPraison/PraisonAI
  • Package: praisonai
  • Components:
    • src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/linear.py
    • src/praisonai/praisonai/cli/features/bots_cli.py

Validated affected:

  • live main / latest observed release v4.6.58: 1ad58ca02975ff1398efeda694ea2ab78f20cf3e
  • previous local current checkout: 2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1
  • v4.6.57
  • v4.6.56
  • v4.5.50

Sampled tags where the LinearBot component was not present:

  • v4.5.49
  • v4.5.51
  • v4.6.9
  • v4.6.10

Suggested affected range: LinearBot-bearing releases with the fail-open signature behavior, at least 4.5.50 and >= 4.6.56, <= 4.6.58. The component appears non-contiguously in sampled tags, so maintainers should confirm the exact packaged version history before publishing a final range.

Root Cause

LinearBot.__init__() accepts an empty signing secret and falls back to an empty environment value:

self._signing_secret = signing_secret or os.environ.get("LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET", "")

start() treats the missing secret as a warning instead of refusing to expose the webhook listener:

if not self._signing_secret:
    logger.warning("LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET not set - webhook signatures will not be verified")

self._site = web.TCPSite(self._runner, "0.0.0.0", self._webhook_port)

_handle_webhook() only verifies the request if the secret is truthy:

if self._signing_secret:
    signature = request.headers.get("Linear-Signature", "")
    if not self._verify_signature(raw_body, signature):
        return web.Response(status=401, text="Invalid signature")

With no secret configured, the code continues to JSON parsing, accepts a caller supplied webhookTimestamp, reads the caller supplied Linear-Event header, and schedules processing:

event_type = request.headers.get("Linear-Event", "")
task = asyncio.create_task(self._process_webhook(event_type, body))
return web.Response(status=200, text="OK")

For AgentSession, the forged body is routed to the agent:

if event_type == "AgentSession":
    await self._handle_agent_session(body)
...
response = await self._session_mgr.chat(self._agent, user_id, message.content)
await self._send_comment(...)

The CLI has the same fail-open posture: start_linear() loads LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET, prints a warning when it is missing, then reports a public http://0.0.0.0:<port>/webhook endpoint with verification disabled.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

PraisonAI's Linear Bot documentation tells operators to set LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET, pass it to praisonai bot linear, copy the Linear webhook signing secret, and use it for HMAC-SHA256 verification. The same page says missing secrets disable signature verification, while its best-practices section says webhook secrets ensure authenticity.

Linear's webhook documentation says receivers should ensure requests were sent by Linear by verifying the Linear-Signature HMAC over the raw body, then checking that webhookTimestamp is recent. The timestamp check alone is not an authentication boundary because an attacker can supply a current timestamp in a forged body.

The implementation itself also confirms the intended boundary: when a secret is configured, missing and bad signatures are rejected before agent dispatch. The bug is the missing-secret fail-open mode on a public webhook server, not the signature algorithm.

Local PoV

Run against the latest observed release checkout:

python3 submission-bundle/praisonai-prai-cand-013-linear-webhook-signature-fail-open/poc/pov_prai_cand_013_linear_webhook_signature_fail_open.py --repo artifacts/repos/praisonai-v4.6.58

Expected output includes:

{
  "candidate": "PRAI-CAND-013",
  "ok": true,
  "cases": {
    "no_secret_unsigned_forged_webhook": {
      "http_status": 200,
      "signing_secret_configured": false,
      "session_calls": [
        {
          "user_id": "linear-system",
          "content": "Issue: Forged Linear AgentSession event\n\nPRAI-CAND-013 local forged webhook payload"
        }
      ],
      "sent_comments": [
        {
          "issue_id": "issue-prai-cand-013",
          "comment": "agent response",
          "session_id": "prai-cand-013-session"
        }
      ]
    },
    "secret_missing_signature_control": {
      "http_status": 401,
      "session_calls": []
    },
    "secret_bad_signature_control": {
      "http_status": 401,
      "session_calls": []
    },
    "secret_valid_signature_control": {
      "http_status": 200,
      "session_calls": [
        {
          "user_id": "linear-system"
        }
      ]
    }
  }
}

Stored evidence:

  • evidence/pov-v4.6.58.json
  • evidence/pov-live-main-v4.6.58.json
  • evidence/pov-current-head.json
  • evidence/version-sweep.tsv

Impact

If a PraisonAI operator starts LinearBot with a Linear token but omits LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET, any network caller that can reach the webhook endpoint can spoof Linear webhook events and invoke the configured agent through the Linear integration.

For the AgentSession event path, this lets the attacker supply issue title and description content that becomes the agent input. Depending on the configured agent and tools, this can cause unauthorized LLM/tool execution, consume paid model quota, create or update Linear comments under the bot identity, and drive the bot into workflows intended only for authenticated Linear events.

This report does not claim arbitrary code execution by default. The concrete boundary crossed is unauthenticated remote agent invocation through a forged Linear webhook.

Suggested Fix

Fail closed for public webhook listeners:

  1. Refuse to start LinearBot when LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET is missing, unless an explicit development-only option such as --insecure-skip-webhook-signature-verification is provided.
  2. In _handle_webhook(), reject requests when no signing secret is configured instead of silently skipping verification.
  3. Preserve raw-body HMAC verification and constant-time comparison for the configured-secret path.
  4. Treat timestamp freshness as replay protection after signature validation, not as a replacement for authentication.
  5. Prefer loopback binding by default, or require an explicit host flag for public binding.
  6. Add regression tests:
    • no signing secret rejects startup or rejects webhook requests;
    • missing signature with a configured secret returns 401;
    • invalid signature with a configured secret returns 401;
    • valid HMAC with a configured secret returns success;
    • stale timestamp after valid HMAC returns 401;
    • the CLI does not advertise a public unauthenticated webhook by default.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
>= 4.6.56, < 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 8.6

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

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

Weakness

CWE-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • 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: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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. For example, consider using libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.

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