PraisonAI before 4.6.78 Remote Code Execution via Broken AST Sandbox (CVE-2026-61438)
Published Last modified Sources: Hersteller, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
Update MervinPraison PraisonAI to version 4.6.78.
- Affected
- MervinPraison PraisonAI
lt *..4.6.78
- MervinPraison PraisonAI
- Fixed in
- MervinPraison PraisonAI
4.6.78
- MervinPraison PraisonAI
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
7.3
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: NVD, CVSS v3
7.3
CVSS v3
Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: Hersteller, CVE.org
0.3 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 23.9
Show all metrics
- Severity
- High
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 61.67 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- no public PoC known
XIEM Effective CVSS
XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.
Read in glossary- 7.3 Methodology
CVSS v3
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 7.3
CVSS v4
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 7.0
EPSS score
The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.
Read in glossary- 0.3 %
- Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile
The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.
Read in glossary- 23.9
- Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: proof of concept · not automatable · Technical impact: total
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 15 July 2026
CWE
CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.
Read in glossary- CWE-184, CWE-693, CWE-78
Detection rules
No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- High technical severity: assess and remediate the vulnerability in vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2 and document the decision.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
Summary
JobWorkflowExecutor._exec_inline_python() is designed to safely execute inline Python expressions from YAML workflow script: steps using AST validation. The function claims to block dangerous operations by (a) checking all AST nodes against an allowlist, and (b) providing a builtins whitelist that omits import, exec, eval, and open.
The sandbox is broken. The module import allowlist (allowed_modules) explicitly includes 'os', and the AST allowlist permits ast.Import, ast.ImportFrom, ast.Call, and ast.Attribute nodes. This means the following malicious workflow script: step passes all AST validation checks and executes without error.
Attack Scenario
Attacker creates or contributes a YAML workflow file (type: job) with a script: step containing import os; os.system(...). A user or CI pipeline with PRAISONAI_ALLOW_JOB_WORKFLOWS=true executes the workflow via praisonai workflow run malicious.yaml. Arbitrary OS commands execute with the privileges of the calling process.
This is particularly dangerous in multi-tenant or CI environments where YAML workflows may originate from untrusted sources (e.g., downloaded templates, shared repositories, AI-generated workflows).
PoC
Complete instructions, including specific configuration details, to reproduce the vulnerability.
Impact
Root Cause — Lines 364–372:
pythonallowed_modules = {'os', 'datetime', 'time', 'json', 'math', 're', 'collections', 'itertools'} if isinstance(node, ast.Import): for alias in node.names: if alias.name.split('.')[0] not in allowed_modules: return {"ok": False, "error": f"Import of '{alias.name}' not allowed..."}
os is trusted because it is commonly used for path operations (os.path, os.getcwd). However, os.system(), os.popen(), os.execvp(), os.spawn*(), and os._exit() are all accessible once the module is imported, none of which are individually blocked.
The builtins restriction (blocking import) is irrelevant because the code uses a real import statement processed by the Python bytecode compiler — not a import() call.
Proof-of-Concept validation (static — no remote network call made):
pythonimport ast
_ALLOWED_NODES = ( ast.Expression, ast.BoolOp, ast.BinOp, ast.UnaryOp, ast.Compare, ast.IfExp, ast.Constant, ast.Name, ast.Load, ast.Store, ast.Subscript, ast.List, ast.Tuple, ast.Dict, ast.Set, ast.And, ast.Or, ast.Not, ast.Eq, ast.NotEq, ast.Lt, ast.LtE, ast.Gt, ast.GtE, ast.In, ast.NotIn, ast.Add, ast.Sub, ast.Mult, ast.Div, ast.Mod, ast.FloorDiv, ast.USub, ast.UAdd, ast.Call, ast.Attribute, ast.keyword, ast.Starred, ast.Module, ast.Assign, ast.Import, ast.ImportFrom, ast.alias, ) allowed_modules = {'os', 'datetime', 'time', 'json', 'math', 're', 'collections', 'itertools'}
malicious = "import os\nresult = os.system('id')" tree = ast.parse(malicious, mode="exec")
all_pass = True for node in ast.walk(tree): if not isinstance(node, _ALLOWED_NODES): print(f"BLOCKED: {type(node).name}") all_pass = False if isinstance(node, ast.Import): for alias in node.names: if alias.name.split('.')[0] not in allowed_modules: print(f"IMPORT BLOCKED: {alias.name}") all_pass = False
print("SANDBOX BYPASSED" if all_pass else "sandbox holds")
Output: SANDBOX BYPASSED
Recommended Fix
Remove 'os' from allowed_modules and replace it with only the safe submodule: 'os.path'. Then validate that the imported name is specifically os.path, not os:
python# BEFORE (vulnerable) allowed_modules = {'os', 'datetime', 'time', 'json', 'math', 're', 'collections', 'itertools'}
AFTER (safe)
allowed_modules = {'datetime', 'time', 'json', 'math', 're', 'collections', 'itertools', 'pathlib'}
If os.path is needed, handle it explicitly:
if isinstance(node, ast.ImportFrom): if node.module == 'os.path': pass # allow 'from os.path import join, exists' only elif node.module and node.module.split('.')[0] not in allowed_modules: return {"ok": False, "error": f"Import of '{node.module}' not allowed."}
Additionally, block ast.Import of os entirely, and consider also removing re (which can be used for ReDoS/CPU exhaustion) and collections (which can be used to reach subclasses-style gadgets).
Source: GitHub Security Advisories, NVD (NIST), CVE.org (MITRE), cvelistv5
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MervinPraison | PraisonAI |
|
|
| pip | praisonai |
|
|
Vendors and products
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-184Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs
Base
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.
Entry at MITRE CWE-184CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure
Pillar
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
Entry at MITRE CWE-693CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Base
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.
Entry at MITRE CWE-78
References & sources
- github.comGitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-26mh-57q7-jfvr)Vendor advisory
- vulncheck.comVulnCheck Advisory: PraisonAI before 4.6.78 Remote Code Execution via Broken AST SandboxThird-party advisory
Changes to this CVE
Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).
One NVD translation into another language is hidden.
Embed badge
Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-61438"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-61438.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-61438 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>