GHSA-xcmw-grxf-wjhj CVE-2026-44334 PYSEC-2026-2926
PraisonAI has unauthenticated RCE via `tool_override.py` (CVE-2026-40287 patch bypass)
- Severity
- 8.4 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.25%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.00% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
4.6.32- Upgrade praisonai to this version or later
Description
TL;DR
CVE-2026-40287's fix gated tools.py auto-import behind PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS=true in two files (tool_resolver.py, api/call.py). A third import sink in praisonai/templates/tool_override.py was missed and remains unguarded. It is reached by the recipe runner on every recipe execution and is remotely triggerable through POST /v1/recipes/run with a recipe value pointing at any local absolute path or any GitHub repo (because SecurityConfig.allow_any_github defaults to True). The attacker drops a tools.py next to TEMPLATE.yaml; the server exec_module()s it. No auth required by default, no environment opt-in required.
Patch coverage gap
CVE-2026-40287 was fixed in v4.5.139 by adding an env-var gate at:
| File | Line | Gate |
|---|---|---|
praisonai/tool_resolver.py |
77 | if os.environ.get("PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS", "").lower() != "true": |
praisonai/api/call.py |
80 | same |
But the equivalent sinks in praisonai/templates/tool_override.py were not patched:
# tool_override.py - create_tool_registry_with_overrides()
332 cwd_tools_py = Path.cwd() / "tools.py"
333 if cwd_tools_py.exists():
334 try:
335 tools = loader.load_from_file(str(cwd_tools_py)) # <-- exec_module
336 registry.update(tools)
337 except Exception:
338 pass
339
341 # 4. Template-local tools.py
342 if template_dir:
343 tools_py = Path(template_dir) / "tools.py"
344 if tools_py.exists():
345 try:
346 tools = loader.load_from_file(str(tools_py)) # <-- exec_module
347 registry.update(tools)
348 except Exception:
349 pass
load_from_file (line 84-94) ends in spec.loader.exec_module(module) with no allowlist, no signature check, no env gate. Both call sites run unconditionally on every recipe execution.
Attack chain
HTTP POST /v1/recipes/run
body: {"recipe": "<abs path>" | "github:<owner>/<repo>/<recipe>"}
│
▼
recipe/serve.py:483 run_recipe(request) ← auth=none default
│
▼
recipe/core.py:215 recipe.run(name, ...)
│
▼
recipe/core.py:686 _load_recipe(name)
└─ ".." check only; absolute paths and URIs allowed
│
▼
templates/loader.py:94 TemplateLoader.load(uri)
│
▼
templates/security.py:130 is_source_allowed("github:*")
└─ allow_any_github=True default → returns True
│
▼
templates/registry.py fetch repo from raw.githubusercontent.com → cache dir
│
▼
templates/security.py:215 validate_template_directory(cached.path)
└─ .py is in allowed_extensions → tools.py kept
│
▼
recipe/core.py:887 _execute_recipe(recipe_config, ...)
│
▼
recipe/core.py:943 create_tool_registry_with_overrides(
include_defaults=True,
template_dir=recipe_config.path)
│
▼
templates/tool_override.py:341-349 load_from_file(template_dir/tools.py)
│
▼
templates/tool_override.py:94 spec.loader.exec_module(module) ← RCE
The tool registry build runs before any LLM/agent step, so OPENAI_API_KEY and similar are not required. A recipe with an empty workflow.steps: [] is sufficient - the payload fires during registry construction.
Confirmed execution (2026-04-25, praisonai 4.6.31)
SERVER stdout (PID 43784):
Uvicorn running on http://127.0.0.1:8765
127.0.0.1 - POST /v1/recipes/run HTTP/1.1
[CVE-2026-40287-bypass] RCE fired. Marker written to: …/praisonai_pwn_1777094071.txt
127.0.0.1 - "POST /v1/recipes/run" 500 Internal Server Error
Marker file:
pid: 43784 ← matches server PID
argv: ['server.py'] ← server process, not exploit
The 500 response is a downstream side-effect of workflow.steps: [] failing to construct a runnable workflow; the exec_module(tools.py) call runs before that error. The attacker payload has already executed in the server process by the time the 500 is sent.
Reproduction (local-path variant)
Files under pocs/praisonai-cve-2026-40287-bypass/:
- evil_recipe/TEMPLATE.yaml - minimal recipe metadata
- evil_recipe/tools.py - payload (writes a marker file in tempdir)
- server.py - starts
praisonai.recipe.serve.create_app({})on127.0.0.1:8765(defaultauth: none) - exploit.py - single POST to
/v1/recipes/run
pip install 'praisonai[serve]==4.6.31'
# Terminal 1
python server.py
# Terminal 2
python exploit.py
Expected: server stdout shows [CVE-2026-40287-bypass] RCE fired.; a praisonai_pwn_<timestamp>.txt file appears in the system temp directory containing user, host, pid, cwd captured from inside the server process.
Reproduction (remote GitHub variant)
# Push evil_recipe/ to https://github.com/<you>/poc-recipe (public repo)
curl -X POST http://target:8765/v1/recipes/run \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"recipe":"github:<you>/poc-recipe/poc-recipe"}'
No filesystem prerequisite on the target. Triggers because SecurityConfig.allow_any_github (templates/security.py:30) defaults to True.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| praisonai | >= 4.5.139, < 4.6.32 |
4.6.32 |
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 → 4.6.32
- pip
pip install --upgrade "praisonai>=4.6.32"- poetry
poetry add "praisonai>=4.6.32"- uv
uv add "praisonai>=4.6.32"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- 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: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
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