GHSA-r9x3-wx45-2v7f CVE-2026-39308 PYSEC-2026-2922
PraisonAI recipe registry publish path traversal allows out-of-root file write
- Severity
- 7.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.33%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.84% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- Fix
4.5.113- Upgrade praisonai to this version or later
Description
Summary
PraisonAI's recipe registry publish endpoint writes uploaded recipe bundles to a filesystem path derived from the bundle's internal manifest.json before it verifies that the manifest name and version match the HTTP route. A malicious publisher can place ../ traversal sequences in the bundle manifest and cause the registry server to create files outside the configured registry root even though the request is ultimately rejected with HTTP 400.
This is an arbitrary file write / path traversal issue on the registry host. It affects deployments that expose the recipe registry publish flow. If the registry is intentionally run without a token, any network client that can reach the service can trigger it. If a token is configured, any user with publish access can still exploit it.
Details
The bug is caused by the order of operations between the HTTP handler and the registry storage layer.
RegistryServer._handle_publish()insrc/praisonai/praisonai/recipe/server.py:370-426parsesPOST /v1/recipes/{name}/{version}, writes the uploaded.praisonfile to a temporary path, and immediately calls:
result = self.registry.publish(tmp_path, force=force)
LocalRegistry.publish()insrc/praisonai/praisonai/recipe/registry.py:214-287opens the uploaded tarball, readsmanifest.json, and trusts the attacker-controllednameandversionfields:
name = manifest.get("name")
version = manifest.get("version")
recipe_dir = self.recipes_path / name / version
recipe_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
bundle_name = f"{name}-{version}.praison"
dest_path = recipe_dir / bundle_name
shutil.copy2(bundle_path, dest_path)
- Validation helpers already exist in the same file:
def _validate_name(name: str) -> bool:
def _validate_version(version: str) -> bool:
but they are not called before the filesystem write.
- Only after
publish()returns does the route compare the manifest values with the URL values:
if result["name"] != name or result["version"] != version:
self.registry.delete(result["name"], result["version"])
return self._error_response(...)
At that point the out-of-root artifact has already been created. The request returns an error, but the write outside the registry root remains on disk.
Verified vulnerable behavior:
- Request path:
/v1/recipes/safe/1.0.0 - Internal manifest name:
../../outside-dir - Server response: HTTP
400 - Leftover artifact:
/tmp/praisonai-publish-traversal-poc/outside-dir-1.0.0.praison
This demonstrates that the write occurs before the consistency check and rollback.
PoC
Run the single verification script from the checked-out repository:
cd "/Users/r1zzg0d/Documents/CVE hunting/targets/PraisonAI"
python3 tmp/pocs/poc.py
Expected vulnerable output:
[+] Publish response status: 400
{
"ok": false,
"error": "Bundle name/version (../../outside-dir@1.0.0) doesn't match URL (safe@1.0.0)",
"code": "error"
}
[+] Leftover artifact exists: True
[+] Artifact under registry root: False
[+] RESULT: VULNERABLE - upload was rejected, but an out-of-root artifact was still created.
Then verify the artifact manually:
ls -l /tmp/praisonai-publish-traversal-poc/outside-dir-1.0.0.praison
find /tmp/praisonai-publish-traversal-poc -maxdepth 2 | sort
What the script does internally:
- Starts a local PraisonAI recipe registry server.
- Builds a malicious
.praisonbundle whose internalmanifest.jsoncontainsname = ../../outside-dir. - Uploads that bundle to the apparently safe route
/v1/recipes/safe/1.0.0. - Receives the expected
400mismatch error. - Confirms that
outside-dir-1.0.0.praisonwas still written outside the configured registry directory.
Impact
This is a path traversal / arbitrary file write vulnerability in the recipe registry publish flow.
Impacted parties:
- Registry operators running the PraisonAI recipe registry service.
- Any deployment that allows remote recipe publication.
- Any environment where adjacent writable filesystem locations contain sensitive application data, service files, or staged content that could be overwritten or planted.
Security impact:
- Integrity impact is high because an attacker can create or overwrite files outside the registry root.
- Availability impact is possible if the attacker targets adjacent runtime or application files.
- The issue can be chained with other local loading or deployment behaviors if nearby files are later consumed by another component.
Remediation
-
Validate
manifest.jsonnameandversionbefore any path join or filesystem write. Reject path separators,.., absolute paths, and any value that fails the existing_validate_name()/_validate_version()checks. -
Resolve the final destination path and enforce that it remains under the configured registry root before calling
mkdir()orcopy2(). For example, compare the resolved destination againstself.recipes_path.resolve(). -
Move the URL-to-manifest consistency check ahead of
self.registry.publish(...), or refactorpublish()so it receives already-validated route parameters instead of trusting attacker-controlled manifest values for storage paths.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonai | < 4.5.113 |
4.5.113 |
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 → 4.5.113
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.5.113"- poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.5.113"- uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.5.113"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- 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.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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 [REF-1482].
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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