CVE-2026-60087

mediumpriority · track · 0OT risk · elevatedEPSS 0.003 · 27 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.34% (27th) EPSS
CVSS 6.1 · medium
Is it mine?
2 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
3 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · osv

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

PraisonAI before 1.6.78 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, allowing attackers to reuse initial approvals for subsequent calls with arbitrary arguments. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining approval for a benign operation and then executing dangerous file write operations with unreviewed parameters in the same session.

01

cvss

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

6.9
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode

v3.16.1mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Lsecondary · disclosure@vulncheck.comexploitability 1.8 · impact 4.2
v3.16.1mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Lsecondary · OSV
v4.06.9mediumCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v4.06.9mediumCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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 · disclosure@vulncheck.com
v4.04.4mediumCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/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: no · Technical Impact: partialcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (2)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

advisories (2)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-29r9-67vg-qj56PraisonAI: Human-in-the-loop tool approval is cached by tool name and silently reused for all subsequent calls with arbitrary arguments2026-10-08ghsa · osvUS

    ## Summary PraisonAI gates dangerous tools (file writes, deletes, shell/code execution) behind an interactive approval prompt. The first approval of a tool is cached for the remainder of the run and silently reused for all later invocations of that tool with arbitrary, unreviewed arguments. ## Root cause `ApprovalRegistry.is_already_approved` (`src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/approval/registry.py`, around line 181) returns `True` whenever the tool name is present in a per-run context set. The cache is keyed on tool name only — arguments are not part of the key. `approve_sync` / `approve_async` (around lines 224-226 / 278-279) short-circuit on that cache before the approval backend is consulted. `clear_approved` (around lines 186-187) is the only routine that clears the cache, but it is never invoked in the shipped library (only in tests). The cache persists for the entire agent run and is inherited by child tasks via `contextvars`. Critical-tier tools (`execute_command`, `execute_code`) are exempt from the cache. But high-risk tools like `write_file` are not. ## Proof of concept ```python from praisonaiagents.approval.registry import ApprovalRegistry from praisonaiagents.approval.protocols import ApprovalDecision, ApprovalRequest class CountingBackend: def __init__(self): self.prompts = [] def request_approval_sync(self, request): self.prompts.append((request.tool_name, dict(request.arguments))) return ApprovalDecision(approved=True, reason="human approved") backend = CountingBackend() reg = ApprovalRegistry() reg.set_backend(backend) reg.add_requirement("write_file", "high") d1 = reg.approve_sync("agent", "write_file", {"path": "/tmp/safe.txt", "content": "hi"}) # Human prompted — approves a benign write d2 = reg.approve_sync("agent", "write_file", {"path": "/etc/crontab", "content": "* * * * * root evil"}) # NO prompt — auto-approved from cache assert len(backend.prompts) == 1 assert d2.reason == "Already approved in context" ``` Negative control: `execute_command` (critical) re-prompts on every call — 2 prompts for 2 calls. ## Impact A `write_file` approval for a benign path authorizes every later `write_file` call in the session with arbitrary arguments. A model steered by malicious input can write to sensitive locations with no further human prompt. ## Suggested fix - Include arguments in the approval cache key, or re-prompt on argument change. - Expire the cache per-call or per-turn. - Do not inherit the cache into child tasks.

  • PYSEC-2026-4265PraisonAI: Human-in-the-loop tool approval is cached by tool name and silently reused for all subsequent calls with arbitrary arguments2026-10-15vendor · osvUS

    ## Summary PraisonAI gates dangerous tools (file writes, deletes, shell/code execution) behind an interactive approval prompt. The first approval of a tool is cached for the remainder of the run and silently reused for all later invocations of that tool with arbitrary, unreviewed arguments. ## Root cause `ApprovalRegistry.is_already_approved` (`src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/approval/registry.py`, around line 181) returns `True` whenever the tool name is present in a per-run context set. The cache is keyed on tool name only — arguments are not part of the key. `approve_sync` / `approve_async` (around lines 224-226 / 278-279) short-circuit on that cache before the approval backend is consulted. `clear_approved` (around lines 186-187) is the only routine that clears the cache, but it is never invoked in the shipped library (only in tests). The cache persists for the entire agent run and is inherited by child tasks via `contextvars`. Critical-tier tools (`execute_command`, `execute_code`) are exempt from the cache. But high-risk tools like `write_file` are not. ## Proof of concept ```python from praisonaiagents.approval.registry import ApprovalRegistry from praisonaiagents.approval.protocols import ApprovalDecision, ApprovalRequest class CountingBackend: def __init__(self): self.prompts = [] def request_approval_sync(self, request): self.prompts.append((request.tool_name, dict(request.arguments))) return ApprovalDecision(approved=True, reason="human approved") backend = CountingBackend() reg = ApprovalRegistry() reg.set_backend(backend) reg.add_requirement("write_file", "high") d1 = reg.approve_sync("agent", "write_file", {"path": "/tmp/safe.txt", "content": "hi"}) # Human prompted — approves a benign write d2 = reg.approve_sync("agent", "write_file", {"path": "/etc/crontab", "content": "* * * * * root evil"}) # NO prompt — auto-approved from cache assert len(backend.prompts) == 1 assert d2.reason == "Already approved in context" ``` Negative control: `execute_command` (critical) re-prompts on every call — 2 prompts for 2 calls. ## Impact A `write_file` approval for a benign path authorizes every later `write_file` call in the session with arbitrary arguments. A model steered by malicious input can write to sensitive locations with no further human prompt. ## Suggested fix - Include arguments in the approval cache key, or re-prompt on argument change. - Expire the cache per-call or per-turn. - Do not inherit the cache into child tasks.

06

also known as (5)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

07

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-07-15modified 2026-10-24
08

references (6)

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