PraisonAI: Improper Control of Generation of Code
CVE-2026-55522 is a high-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in PraisonAI from MervinPraison, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an unauthenticated attacker, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. Affected PraisonAI versions: >= 3.9.26, < 4.6.58. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.22% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of PraisonAI you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Because the attack needs a user to take part, warn users about unexpected links and files related to this product until it is patched.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| MervinPraison | PraisonAI | >= 3.9.26, < 4.6.58 | Not stated |
| MervinPraison | praisonaiagents | >= 0.12.12, < 1.6.58 | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- RequiredA user must take an action such as opening a file or link.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. In versions 3.9.26 through 4.6.57 of praiseonai and 0.12.12 through 1.6.57 of praiseonaiagents, the workflow "include" feature is vulnerable to code execution. Workflow._execute_include() implicitly imports and runs an included recipe's tools.py via a raw importlib.util.spec_from_file_location() and spec.loader.exec_module() call, without honoring the PRAISONAI_ALLOW_TEMPLATE_TOOLS/PRAISONAI_ALLOW_LOCAL_TOOLS autoload opt-in gates or routing through the centralized safe loader that protects the other tools.py autoload paths. As a result, a workflow that includes an attacker-controlled local recipe directory executes arbitrary module-level Python code during include setup, before any child workflow parsing or model call, and the same sink is reachable through the higher-level praisonai.recipe.run() recipe API. An attacker who can cause a victim process to run a workflow or recipe that includes an untrusted local recipe achieves arbitrary Python code execution as the PraisonAI process user, a variant that bypasses the hardening applied to the previously disclosed automatic tools.py RCE advisory family. This issue has been fixed in version 4.6.58 of praisonai and 1.6.58 of praisonaiagents.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Control of Generation of Code
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 developers prevent this class of flaw
- Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- 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.
- 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.
More Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities (CWE-94)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other vulnerabilities in PraisonAI
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities
- 9.6 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.