CVE-2026-47408

Type: Insecure Direct Object Reference. The GET /workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id}/activity endpoint is gated by require_workspace_member(workspace_id) and dispatches to ActivityService.list_for_issue(issue_id), which executes SELECT * FROM activity WHERE issue_id = :issue_id with no workspace constraint. A user who is a member of any workspace can read the full activity log of any issue across the entire multi-tenant deployment.
File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py, lines 32-43; services/activity_service.py's list_for_issue method.

Root cause: the route extracts workspace_id from the URL path, uses it solely for the membership gate, then passes the URL-supplied issue_id directly to ActivityService.list_for_issue(issue_id) without verifying which workspace the issue belongs to. The companion list_workspace_activity endpoint at line 19-29 is implemented correctly (it passes workspace_id to svc.list_for_workspace(workspace_id)), the asymmetry is the smoking gun.

Affected Code

File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py, lines 19-43.

@router.get("/activity", response_model=List[ActivityLogResponse])
async def list_workspace_activity(
    workspace_id: str,
    limit: int = Query(50, ge=1, le=200),
    offset: int = Query(0, ge=0),
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    svc = ActivityService(session)
    logs = await svc.list_for_workspace(workspace_id, limit=limit, offset=offset)  # correct: passes workspace_id
    return [ActivityLogResponse.model_validate(log) for log in logs]


@router.get("/issues/{issue_id}/activity", response_model=List[ActivityLogResponse])
async def list_issue_activity(
    workspace_id: str,
    issue_id: str,
    limit: int = Query(50, ge=1, le=200),
    offset: int = Query(0, ge=0),
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    svc = ActivityService(session)
    logs = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id, limit=limit, offset=offset)  # <-- BUG: no workspace_id
    return [ActivityLogResponse.model_validate(log) for log in logs]

Why it's wrong: activity logs are typically the most sensitive operational record, they include actor identity, action type, entity references, and a free-form details JSON blob that may contain pre-/post-change values for any tracked field. Reading the foreign workspace's activity log gives the attacker a high-fidelity view into who did what when, which is gold for further reconnaissance (cross-workspace member enumeration, foreign issue title disclosure, knowing which projects exist). The same author got list_workspace_activity right by passing workspace_id, the issue-scoped variant is the gap.

Exploit Chain

1. Attacker is a member of workspace W_attacker and harvests a target issue UUID I_T from any side channel. State: attacker holds I_T.
2. Attacker sends GET /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/activity?limit=200 with Authorization: Bearer <attacker_jwt>. State: control flow enters list_issue_activity.
3. require_workspace_member(W_attacker, attacker) passes. ActivityService.list_for_issue(I_T) runs SELECT * FROM activity WHERE issue_id = 'I_T' ORDER BY created_at DESC LIMIT 200. State: response body is the full activity log for the foreign issue.
4. The activity entries reveal: every actor (member or agent) who touched the issue, every action (created, updated, commented, status_changed, assignee_changed, project_changed, label_added, dependency_added), and the details JSON blob containing the before/after values of every change. State: the attacker fingerprints the foreign workspace's triage workflow, identifies who works on what, and sees the issue's complete history including any embedded secrets that ever passed through the description or comments.
5. Final state: with one workspace-member token plus one GET, the attacker reads the full activity timeline of any issue in the multi-tenant deployment given the issue UUIDs.

Security Impact

Severity: sec-moderate. CVSS 6.5: network attack, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, scope unchanged, high confidentiality (full activity log including before/after details), no integrity claim (read-only), no availability claim.

Attacker capability: read the activity log of any issue in the deployment given its UUID. Combined with the companion issue-IDOR (which already gives full issue content), this is recon for the foreign workspace's operational tempo, member identity, and triage workflow.

Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; attacker has any workspace-membership token; foreign issue UUIDs are reachable.

Differential: source-inspection-verified. The asymmetry between list_workspace_activity (correctly workspace-scoped) and list_issue_activity (no workspace check) confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, the route first resolves the issue via IssueService.get(workspace_id, issue_id), returns 404 for foreign issues, and only then proceeds.

CVE-2026-47408 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (0.1.4); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py
@@ -32,9 +32,12 @@
 @router.get("/issues/{issue_id}/activity", response_model=List[ActivityLogResponse])
 async def list_issue_activity(
     workspace_id: str,
     issue_id: str,
     limit: int = Query(50, ge=1, le=200),
     offset: int = Query(0, ge=0),
     user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
     session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
 ):
+    issue_svc = IssueService(session)
+    if await issue_svc.get(workspace_id, issue_id) is None:    # workspace-scoped get from issue-IDOR companion
+        raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Issue not found")
     svc = ActivityService(session)
     logs = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id, limit=limit, offset=offset)
     return [ActivityLogResponse.model_validate(log) for log in logs]

The same single-key issue lookup pattern is filed separately as the IssueService IDOR; once that is fixed, the helper used here is just IssueService.get(workspace_id, issue_id).

1. What is CVE-2026-47408? CVE-2026-47408 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in praisonai-platform (pip), affecting versions <= 0.1.2. It is fixed in 0.1.4.
2. How severe is CVE-2026-47408? CVE-2026-47408 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
3. Which versions of praisonai-platform are affected by CVE-2026-47408? praisonai-platform (pip) versions <= 0.1.2 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-47408? Yes. CVE-2026-47408 is fixed in 0.1.4. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is CVE-2026-47408 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-47408 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-47408 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
7. How do I fix CVE-2026-47408? Upgrade praisonai-platform to 0.1.4 or later.