CVE-2026-47411

Type: Authorization bypass enabling workspace metadata + settings tampering. The PATCH /workspaces/{workspace_id} endpoint is gated only by require_workspace_member(workspace_id) (default min_role="member"). Any member can rewrite the workspace's name, description, and the settings JSON blob. The settings field is a free-form JSON object, depending on which downstream code reads it, this becomes a configuration-injection primitive for any setting the platform exposes there.
File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py, lines 63-74; services/workspace_service.py's update() method.
Root cause: Depends(require_workspace_member) resolves to default min_role="member". WorkspaceService.update(workspace_id, name, description, settings) writes the new fields to the workspace row without any caller-permission check. The role hierarchy (MemberService.has_role) is never consulted.

Affected Code

File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py, lines 63-74.

@router.patch("/{workspace_id}", response_model=WorkspaceResponse)
async def update_workspace(
    workspace_id: str,
    body: WorkspaceUpdate,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),         # <-- BUG: defaults to min_role="member"
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    ws_svc = WorkspaceService(session)
    ws = await ws_svc.update(workspace_id, body.name, body.description, body.settings)  # <-- writes any value
    if ws is None:
        raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Workspace not found")
    return WorkspaceResponse.model_validate(ws)

Why it's wrong: workspace name and settings are owner-tier fields. Renaming the workspace to a profanity is a low-impact griefing vector; rewriting the JSON settings blob is potentially a much higher-impact configuration injection (depending on what fields downstream code reads from settings, the attacker may flip feature flags, redirect webhook URLs, change LLM provider keys for shared configs, disable audit logging, etc.). The require_workspace_member(min_role) parameter is implemented and unused. This endpoint should require owner.

Exploit Chain

1. Attacker is a member of workspace W with role "member". State: attacker holds JWT.
2. Attacker sends PATCH /workspaces/W with Authorization: Bearer <attacker_jwt> and body {"name": "Compromised", "description": "Owned by attacker", "settings": {"allow_public_invite": true, "ai_provider_url": "https://attacker.example/v1"}}. State: control flow enters update_workspace.
3. require_workspace_member(W, attacker) passes. WorkspaceService.update(W, ...) writes the three fields. State: workspace W now has attacker-chosen name, description, and settings.
4. The settings JSON is read by any downstream code that consults workspace settings (LLM proxying, invite flows, webhook routing). If the deployment uses settings-keyed configuration overrides, those overrides now point at attacker-controlled endpoints.
5. Final state: with one member-level token plus one PATCH, the attacker rewrites the workspace's metadata and settings, with effects ranging from cosmetic (rename) to substantive (settings-keyed config injection).

Security Impact

Severity: sec-moderate. CVSS 6.5: network attack, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, scope unchanged, no confidentiality directly (though settings rewrites may enable indirect data exfiltration via attacker-pointed integration URLs), high integrity, no availability claim.
Attacker capability: rewrite any workspace's name, description, and settings JSON. The actual blast radius depends on what fields the deployment reads from settings, but that field is documented as a free-form JSON blob, so any future configuration the platform adds there becomes attacker-tunable.
Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; attacker has any membership token in the target workspace.
Differential: source-inspection-verified. With the suggested fix below, member-tier tokens fail the gate and the metadata rewrite is rejected with 403.

The application assigns, modifies, tracks, or checks privileges incorrectly, allowing a user to gain elevated access. Typical impact: privilege escalation beyond the intended level.

CVE-2026-47411 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/workspaces.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py
@@ -63,11 +63,11 @@
 @router.patch("/{workspace_id}", response_model=WorkspaceResponse)
 async def update_workspace(
     workspace_id: str,
     body: WorkspaceUpdate,
-    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
+    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(_require_workspace_owner),  # see member-update-role advisory for helper
     session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
 ):
     ws_svc = WorkspaceService(session)
     ws = await ws_svc.update(workspace_id, body.name, body.description, body.settings)
     if ws is None:
         raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Workspace not found")
     return WorkspaceResponse.model_validate(ws)

Defence-in-depth: validate the keys allowed in body.settings against an allowlist so the field cannot become an arbitrary config-injection primitive even for owners. The four companion workspace-mutation endpoints (add_member, update_member_role, remove_member, delete_workspace) exhibit the same default-min-role gap and are filed as their own advisories.

1. What is CVE-2026-47411? CVE-2026-47411 is a medium-severity improper privilege management vulnerability in praisonai-platform (pip), affecting versions < 0.1.4. It is fixed in 0.1.4. The application assigns, modifies, tracks, or checks privileges incorrectly, allowing a user to gain elevated access.
2. How severe is CVE-2026-47411? CVE-2026-47411 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-2026-47411? praisonai-platform (pip) versions < 0.1.4 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-47411? Yes. CVE-2026-47411 is fixed in 0.1.4. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is CVE-2026-47411 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-47411 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-2026-47411 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-2026-47411? Upgrade praisonai-platform to 0.1.4 or later.