vulnerability / NVI-00008989 / Revision 3
PraisonAI vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Broken AST Sandbox
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for praisonai. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
7.3 high
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
0.310%
FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.23908. Missing scores are unknown.
As of · FIRST EPSS
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
praisonai
source listed< 4.6.78
### 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 workflo
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-26mh-57q7-jfvr ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-61438 ↗
FIRST EPSS · official catalog
Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 3 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 2 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.