CVE-2026-44335

criticalpriority · track · 39EPSS 0.004 · 32 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP2 · Scheduled
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.38% (32nd) EPSS
CVSS 9.8 · critical
Is it mine?
3 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
4 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · osv · nvd

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.6.32, the URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. This issue has been patched in version 1.6.32.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

9.8
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode⚠ sources disagree · medium–critical · 6.6–9.8

v3.19.8criticalCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:Hprimary · NVD / NIST USexploitability 3.9 · impact 5.9
v3.19.8criticalCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:Hsecondary · OSV
v4.07.7highCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:Psecondary · ENISA EU
v4.07.7highCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Xsecondary · security-advisories@github.com
v4.06.6mediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Xsecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Exploitation: poc · Automatable: yes · Technical Impact: partialcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (3)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

advisories (2)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384gPraisonAI has an SSRF bypass2026-05-06ghsa · osvUS

    ### Summary The URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. ### Details The current PraisonAI project uses _validate_url to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL extracted by urlparse to prevent SSRF attacks. <img width="1290" height="1145" alt="QQ20260424-151256-24-1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d5f16b74-5ad2-444f-8600-b05f78a4b769" /> However, there are indeed differences in parsing between urlparse and the library that actually sends the request. Currently, almost all application scenarios in this project involve first using _validate_url for URL validation, and then using _get_session().get to send the request. <img width="1143" height="740" alt="QQ20260424-151437-24-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b1bf6ec2-d32a-4dac-b814-da819e8d3c83" /> In reality, its underlying mechanism is requests.get. <img width="1042" height="576" alt="QQ20260424-151645-24-3" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e17352c3-4205-44d6-ab6e-75566480215b" /> The core issue: `urlparse()` and `requests` disagree on which host a URL like `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1` points to: - `urlparse()` treats `\` as a regular character and `@` as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as `1.1.1.1` (public) - `requests` treats `\` as a path character, connecting to `127.0.0.1` (internal) Below is a test code I wrote following the code. ``` import sys from pathlib import Path from pprint import pprint sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(r"D:/BaiduNetdiskDownload/PraisonAI-main/PraisonAI-main/src/praisonai-agents"))) from praisonaiagents.tools import spider_tools # url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1" url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666" result = spider_tools.scrape_page(url) if isinstance(result, dict) and "error" in result: print("scrape failed:", result["error"]) else: pprint(result) ``` When an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666/`, the existing detection logic can detect that this is an internal network address and block it. <img width="1068" height="128" alt="QQ20260424-152007-24-4" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/294bff10-2af6-4960-bf69-dbf3340b1e9b" /> However, when an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1`, the detection logic resolves the host to `1.1.1.1`, which is a public IP address, thus passing the verification. But in the actual request process, this URL is forwarded by requests.get to `http://127.0.0.1:6666`, bypassing the detection and achieving an SSRF attack. <img width="2089" height="324" alt="QQ20260424-152123-24-5" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4421ce42-e47b-48de-a97a-56ce56a2bbc9" /> ### PoC ``` http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1 ``` ### Impact SSRF

  • PYSEC-2026-2950PraisonAI has an SSRF bypass2026-07-13vendor · osvUS

    ### Summary The URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. ### Details The current PraisonAI project uses _validate_url to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL extracted by urlparse to prevent SSRF attacks. <img width="1290" height="1145" alt="QQ20260424-151256-24-1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d5f16b74-5ad2-444f-8600-b05f78a4b769" /> However, there are indeed differences in parsing between urlparse and the library that actually sends the request. Currently, almost all application scenarios in this project involve first using _validate_url for URL validation, and then using _get_session().get to send the request. <img width="1143" height="740" alt="QQ20260424-151437-24-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b1bf6ec2-d32a-4dac-b814-da819e8d3c83" /> In reality, its underlying mechanism is requests.get. <img width="1042" height="576" alt="QQ20260424-151645-24-3" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e17352c3-4205-44d6-ab6e-75566480215b" /> The core issue: `urlparse()` and `requests` disagree on which host a URL like `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1` points to: - `urlparse()` treats `\` as a regular character and `@` as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as `1.1.1.1` (public) - `requests` treats `\` as a path character, connecting to `127.0.0.1` (internal) Below is a test code I wrote following the code. ``` import sys from pathlib import Path from pprint import pprint sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(r"D:/BaiduNetdiskDownload/PraisonAI-main/PraisonAI-main/src/praisonai-agents"))) from praisonaiagents.tools import spider_tools # url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1" url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666" result = spider_tools.scrape_page(url) if isinstance(result, dict) and "error" in result: print("scrape failed:", result["error"]) else: pprint(result) ``` When an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666/`, the existing detection logic can detect that this is an internal network address and block it. <img width="1068" height="128" alt="QQ20260424-152007-24-4" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/294bff10-2af6-4960-bf69-dbf3340b1e9b" /> However, when an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1`, the detection logic resolves the host to `1.1.1.1`, which is a public IP address, thus passing the verification. But in the actual request process, this URL is forwarded by requests.get to `http://127.0.0.1:6666`, bypassing the detection and achieving an SSRF attack. <img width="2089" height="324" alt="QQ20260424-152123-24-5" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4421ce42-e47b-48de-a97a-56ce56a2bbc9" /> ### PoC ``` http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1 ``` ### Impact SSRF

06

also known as (6)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

07

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-05-08modified 2026-10-26
08

references (4)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan