Skip to content

GHSA-w388-2392-px73 CVE-2026-47409 PYSEC-2026-2938

praisonai-platform: Missing authorization on member removal enables full workspace takeover by any user regardless of role

High PyPI
Severity
8.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.13% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
0.1.4
Upgrade praisonai-platform to this version or later

Description

Summary

Type: Authorization bypass enabling owner lockout. The DELETE /workspaces/{workspace_id}/members/{user_id} endpoint is gated only by require_workspace_member(workspace_id) (default min_role="member"). Any member can remove any other member, including the workspace owner, using a single DELETE. There is no caller-role check, no target-role check, no "cannot remove last owner" guard. File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py, lines 130-140; services/member_service.py, lines 71-78. Root cause: MemberService.remove(workspace_id, user_id) performs the deletion without any caller-permission check or owner-protection logic. The route accepts the URL-supplied user_id and dispatches it straight through. The role hierarchy (MemberService.has_role) is implemented but never invoked here. A member-tier attacker can issue DELETE .../members/<owner_user_id> and immediately lock the legitimate owner out of the workspace.

Affected Code

File 1: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py, lines 130-140.

@router.delete("/{workspace_id}/members/{user_id}", status_code=status.HTTP_204_NO_CONTENT)
async def remove_member(
    workspace_id: str,
    user_id: str,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),         # <-- BUG: defaults to min_role="member"
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    removed = await member_svc.remove(workspace_id, user_id)        # <-- removes any member, including owner
    if not removed:
        raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Member not found")

File 2: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/member_service.py, lines 71-78.

async def remove(self, workspace_id: str, user_id: str) -> bool:
    """Remove a member from a workspace."""
    member = await self.get(workspace_id, user_id)
    if member is None:
        return False
    await self._session.delete(member)                               # <-- BUG: no caller-role check, no last-owner protection
    await self._session.flush()
    return True

Why it's wrong: member-removal is the textbook capability that must be gated on owner role. Removing the workspace owner is a permanent denial-of-service against the legitimate owner unless another owner exists. There must be (a) a caller min-role gate of "owner" or "admin", (b) a check that prevents removing a member whose role is higher than the caller's, and (c) a check that the workspace is left with at least one owner. None of these exist.

Exploit Chain

  1. Attacker is a member of workspace W with role "member". State: attacker holds JWT.
  2. Attacker enumerates the workspace owner's user_id via GET /workspaces/W/members (list_members has the same default-member gate, separate finding). Owner UUID O_id is now known. State: attacker holds O_id.
  3. Attacker sends DELETE /workspaces/W/members/O_id with Authorization: Bearer <attacker_jwt>. State: control flow enters remove_member.
  4. require_workspace_member(W, attacker) passes (attacker is a member). MemberService.remove(W, O_id) deletes the owner's member row. State: Member(workspace_id=W, user_id=O_id, role="owner") is gone.
  5. Owner attempts GET /workspaces/W/... and require_workspace_member(W, O_id) returns 403. State: legitimate owner is now locked out of their own workspace.
  6. Combined with the update_member_role companion advisory, the attacker first promotes themselves to owner, then removes the legitimate owner, then has uncontested control. Combined with delete_workspace, the attacker wipes the workspace after kicking the owner.
  7. Final state: with one member-level token, the attacker locks the legitimate owner out of their own workspace permanently. The owner has no recourse other than database-level admin intervention.

Security Impact

Severity: sec-high. CVSS 8.1: network attack, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, scope unchanged, no confidentiality, high integrity (membership table corrupted), high availability (legitimate owner cannot access their own workspace). Attacker capability: with one workspace-member token plus one DELETE request, the attacker permanently locks any other member (including the workspace owner) out of the workspace. Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; attacker has any membership token; owner's user_id is reachable via the (unauthenticated-for-member) list_members endpoint. Differential: source-inspection-verified. The asymmetry between require_workspace_member's tunable min_role parameter and this endpoint's use of the default value confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, member-tier tokens fail the gate, and removing the workspace's last owner triggers the additional guard.

Suggested Fix

--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py
@@ -130,11 +130,21 @@
 @router.delete("/{workspace_id}/members/{user_id}", status_code=status.HTTP_204_NO_CONTENT)
 async def remove_member(
     workspace_id: str,
     user_id: str,
-    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
+    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(_require_workspace_owner),
     session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
 ):
     member_svc = MemberService(session)
+    target = await member_svc.get(workspace_id, user_id)
+    if target is not None and target.role == "owner":
+        # Refuse to remove the last owner.
+        owners = [m for m in await member_svc.list_members(workspace_id) if m.role == "owner"]
+        if len(owners) <= 1:
+            raise HTTPException(status_code=409, detail="Cannot remove the last workspace owner")
     removed = await member_svc.remove(workspace_id, user_id)
     if not removed:
         raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Member not found")

The four companion workspace-mutation endpoints exhibit the same default-min-role gap and are filed as their own advisories.

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 8.1

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-269: Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

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