Skip to content

GHSA-ffp3-3562-8cv3 CVE-2026-56074 PYSEC-2026-2946

PraisonAI: Coarse-Grained Tool Approval Cache Bypasses Per-Invocation Consent for Shell Commands

Medium PyPI
Severity
6.8 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.18%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.12% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
4.5.128
Upgrade praisonaiagents to this version or later

Description

Summary

The approval system in PraisonAI Agents caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments. Once a user approves execute_command for any command (e.g., ls -la), all subsequent execute_command calls in that execution context bypass the approval prompt entirely. Combined with os.environ.copy() passing all process environment variables to subprocesses, this allows an LLM agent (potentially via prompt injection) to silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials without further user consent.

Details

The require_approval decorator in src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/approval/__init__.py:176-178 checks approval status by tool name only:

@wraps(func)
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
    if is_already_approved(tool_name):   # line 177 — checks only tool_name
        return func(*args, **kwargs)     # line 178 — bypasses ALL approval

The mark_approved function in registry.py:144-147 stores only the tool name string:

def mark_approved(self, tool_name: str) -> None:
    approved = self._approved_context.get(set())
    approved.add(tool_name)              # stores "execute_command", not args
    self._approved_context.set(approved)

The approval context is never cleared during agent execution — clear_approved() exists (registry.py:152) but is never called in the agent's tool execution path (agent/tool_execution.py).

Meanwhile, the ConsoleBackend UI at backends.py:95-96 misleads the user:

return Confirm.ask(
    f"Do you want to execute this {request.risk_level} risk tool?",
    # "this" implies per-invocation approval
)

The UI displays the specific command arguments (lines 81-85), creating a reasonable expectation that the user is approving only that specific invocation.

Additionally, shell_tools.py:77 passes the full process environment to every subprocess:

process_env = os.environ.copy()  # includes OPENAI_API_KEY, etc.

There is no command filtering, blocklist, or environment variable sanitization in the shell tools module.

PoC

from praisonaiagents import Agent
from praisonaiagents.tools.shell_tools import execute_command

# Step 1: Create agent with shell tool
agent = Agent(
    name="worker",
    instructions="You are a helpful assistant.",
    tools=[execute_command]
)

# Step 2: Agent requests benign command — user sees Rich panel:
#   Function: execute_command
#   Risk Level: CRITICAL
#   Arguments:
#     command: ls -la
#   "Do you want to execute this critical risk tool?" [y/N]
# User approves → mark_approved("execute_command") is called

# Step 3: All subsequent execute_command calls bypass approval silently:
# execute_command(command="env")
#   → returns ALL environment variables (OPENAI_API_KEY, AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY, etc.)
#   → NO approval prompt shown

# Step 4: Targeted extraction also bypasses approval:
# execute_command(command="printenv OPENAI_API_KEY")
#   → returns the specific API key
#   → NO approval prompt shown

# Verification: check the approval cache
from praisonaiagents.approval import is_already_approved
# After approving "ls -la":
# is_already_approved("execute_command") → True
# Any execute_command call now returns immediately at __init__.py:177-178

Impact

  • Secret exfiltration: An LLM agent (or one subjected to prompt injection) can dump all process environment variables after a single benign command approval. Common secrets include OPENAI_API_KEY, AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY, DATABASE_URL, and any other credentials passed via environment.
  • Misleading consent UI: The console prompt displays specific arguments and uses language ("this tool") that implies per-invocation consent, but the system grants session-wide blanket approval.
  • No expiration or scope: The approval cache uses a ContextVar that persists for the entire agent execution context with no timeout, no command-count limit, and no clearing between tool calls.
  • No environment filtering: os.environ.copy() passes every environment variable to subprocesses without filtering sensitive patterns.

Recommended Fix

  1. Per-invocation approval for critical tools — store a hash of (tool_name, arguments) instead of just tool_name, or require re-approval for each invocation of critical-risk tools:
# In registry.py — change mark_approved/is_already_approved:
import hashlib, json

def mark_approved(self, tool_name: str, arguments: dict = None) -> None:
    approved = self._approved_context.get(set())
    risk = self._risk_levels.get(tool_name)
    if risk == "critical" and arguments:
        key = f"{tool_name}:{hashlib.sha256(json.dumps(arguments, sort_keys=True).encode()).hexdigest()}"
    else:
        key = tool_name
    approved.add(key)
    self._approved_context.set(approved)

def is_already_approved(self, tool_name: str, arguments: dict = None) -> bool:
    approved = self._approved_context.get(set())
    risk = self._risk_levels.get(tool_name)
    if risk == "critical" and arguments:
        key = f"{tool_name}:{hashlib.sha256(json.dumps(arguments, sort_keys=True).encode()).hexdigest()}"
        return key in approved
    return tool_name in approved
  1. Filter environment variables in shell_tools.py:
SENSITIVE_PATTERNS = ('_KEY', '_SECRET', '_TOKEN', '_PASSWORD', '_CREDENTIAL')

process_env = {
    k: v for k, v in os.environ.items()
    if not any(p in k.upper() for p in SENSITIVE_PATTERNS)
}
if env:
    process_env.update(env)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonaiagents
< 4.5.128
4.5.128
praisonaiagents
< 4.5.128
4.5.128

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.

praisonaiagents PyPI → 4.5.128

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonaiagents>=4.5.128"
poetry
poetry add "praisonaiagents>=4.5.128"
uv
uv add "praisonaiagents>=4.5.128"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 6.8

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 5.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • 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 authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-gxmw-5f7x-6g22
praisonaiagents vulnerable to arbitrary file write via unsanitized `user_id` in `FileMemory.__init__()` — path traversal to any writable location
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-cfxv-8fw8-rwpv
praisonaiagents: ast_grep_rewrite rewrites arbitrary files without the @require_approval gate enforced on every sibling mutation tool
Medium Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-x44h-65qv-cw74
praisonaiagents has an SSRF protection bypass in `spider_tools._host_is_blocked()` via DNS-resolved hostnames (`127.0.0.1.nip.io`)
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-7g3p-92qq-8wvh
praisonaiagents: AgentServer declares auth_token but never enforces it on any route
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-5r34-2g38-6569
praisonaiagents web_crawl vulnerable to SSRF via redirect-following
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-vg6p-v9vm-6fgj
praisonaiagents vulnerable to SSRF in web_crawl tool via redirect-following and DNS rebinding (validate-then-fetch gap)
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-8hjw-25cg-g52h
praisonaiagents has a `web_crawl` SSRF protection bypass via unchecked redirect targets
High Also affects praisonaiagents
GHSA-hxmv-c4g6-5fqc
PraisonAI workflow include bypasses tools.py autoload opt-in and executes included recipe code
High Also affects praisonaiagents
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