Summary
PraisonAI: Human-in-the-loop tool approval is cached by tool name and silently reused for all subsequent calls with arbitrary arguments
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
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.
The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions. Typical impact: unauthorized data access or execution of privileged operations.
CVE-2026-60087 has a CVSS score of 6.1 (Medium). The vector is requires local access, no privileges required, and user interaction required. 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 (1.6.78); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
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. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
- 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.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-60087? CVE-2026-60087 is a medium-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in praisonaiagents (pip), affecting versions <= 1.6.77. It is fixed in 1.6.78. The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions.
- How severe is CVE-2026-60087? CVE-2026-60087 has a CVSS score of 6.1 (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.
- Which versions of praisonaiagents are affected by CVE-2026-60087? praisonaiagents (pip) versions <= 1.6.77 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-60087? Yes. CVE-2026-60087 is fixed in 1.6.78. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-60087 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-60087 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
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-60087 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.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-60087? Upgrade
praisonaiagentsto 1.6.78 or later.