GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C

PraisonAI Dynamic Context history and terminal tools read files outside configured storage via path traversal

PraisonAI's Dynamic Context module provides filesystem-backed history and
terminal-log storage. The SDK reference describes the module as providing:

• artifact storage for tool outputs, history, and terminal logs;
• history persistence with search; and
• terminal session logging.

The module also exports agent-callable tool factories:

• create_history_tools() returns history_search, history_tail, and
  history_get.
• create_terminal_tools() returns terminal_tail, terminal_grep, and
  terminal_commands.

Those tools accept run_id and agent_id arguments from the tool caller. The
underlying stores join those values into filesystem paths without rejecting
absolute paths or .. traversal:

history_dir = self.base_dir / run_id / "history"
return history_dir / f"{agent_id}.jsonl"

terminal_dir = self.base_dir / run_id / "terminal"
return terminal_dir / f"{agent_id}.log"

Because run_id can be an absolute path and agent_id can contain traversal,
a lower-trust prompt/user that can call these tools can read .jsonl and
.log files outside the configured Dynamic Context base directory.

Affected Product

• Repository: MervinPraison/PraisonAI
• Ecosystem: pip
• Package: praisonai
• Component: Dynamic Context history and terminal tools
• Current source paths:
  • src/praisonai/praisonai/context/history_store.py
  • src/praisonai/praisonai/context/terminal_logger.py
• Latest PyPI version validated: 4.6.58
• Current origin/main validated:
  1ad58ca02975ff1398efeda694ea2ab78f20cf3e
• Current origin/main tag validated: v4.6.58

Suggested affected range:

pip:praisonai >= 3.8.1, <= 4.6.58

Representative local sweep:

• 3.8.1: vulnerable
• 4.0.0: vulnerable
• 4.5.113: vulnerable
• 4.6.33: vulnerable
• 4.6.34: vulnerable
• 4.6.40: vulnerable
• 4.6.50: vulnerable
• 4.6.58: vulnerable

Root Cause

HistoryStore._get_history_path() and TerminalLogger._get_log_path() treat
logical identifiers as path segments, but never validate that the resolved path
stays under base_dir.

History path construction:

def _get_history_path(self, run_id: str, agent_id: str) -> Path:
    history_dir = self.base_dir / run_id / "history"
    history_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    return history_dir / f"{agent_id}.jsonl"

Terminal path construction:

def _get_log_path(self, run_id: str, agent_id: str) -> Path:
    terminal_dir = self.base_dir / run_id / "terminal"
    terminal_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    return terminal_dir / f"{agent_id}.log"

The agent tools pass caller-controlled run_id and agent_id directly into
these helpers:

def history_tail(agent_id: str = "default", run_id: str = "default", count: int = 10) -> str:
    messages = history_store.get_last_messages(agent_id=agent_id, run_id=run_id, count=count)

def terminal_tail(agent_id: str = "default", run_id: str = "default", lines: int = 50) -> str:
    return term_logger.tail_session(agent_id=agent_id, run_id=run_id, lines=lines)

There is no check equivalent to:

resolved = candidate.resolve()
base = self.base_dir.resolve()
resolved.relative_to(base)

There is also no identifier allowlist preventing /, \, or .. in
run_id or agent_id.

Local PoV

Run against the latest PyPI package:

uv run --with 'praisonai==4.6.58' \
  python poc/pov_prai_cand_027_history_terminal_tools_path_traversal.py --json

The PoV:

1. Creates a temporary Dynamic Context base directory.
2. Creates a separate outside directory containing secret.jsonl and
   secret.log.
3. Creates legitimate in-base history and terminal log controls.
4. Calls history_tail() and history_get() with
   run_id=<outside-dir> and agent_id=../secret.
5. Calls terminal_tail() and terminal_grep() with the same traversal.
6. Confirms the traversal paths resolve to files outside the configured base.

Observed output summary from evidence/pov-pypi-4.6.58.json:

{
  "package": "praisonai",
  "package_version": "4.6.58",
  "controls": {
    "valid_history_read_works": true,
    "valid_terminal_read_works": true,
    "outside_history_file_outside_base_dir": true,
    "outside_terminal_file_outside_base_dir": true,
    "traversal_history_path_resolves_to_outside_file": true,
    "traversal_terminal_path_resolves_to_outside_file": true
  },
  "outside_history_tail": "Last 1 messages:\\n\\n[system]: PRAI-CAND-027-HISTORY-SECRET",
  "outside_terminal_tail": "PRAI-CAND-027-TERMINAL-SECRET\\nsecond line\\n",
  "outside_terminal_grep": "Found 1 matches:\\n\\n--- Line 1 ---\\n> PRAI-CAND-027-TERMINAL-SECRET\\n  second line",
  "vulnerable": true
}

The PoV is local-only. It does not start a server, contact a third-party
target, or use real credentials.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

This report does not claim that history and terminal helpers should be unable
to read legitimate history or terminal logs. The issue is narrower: logical
run_id and agent_id values can escape the configured Dynamic Context base
directory.

The controls show the intended boundary:

• legitimate in-base history remains readable;
• legitimate in-base terminal logs remain readable;
• the outside .jsonl and .log files are not under the configured
  base_dir; and
• the tools still disclose those outside files through traversal identifiers.

The official context reference describes history persistence and terminal
logging as filesystem-backed Dynamic Context features. The context security
documentation also treats absolute paths, path traversal, and sensitive files
as privacy/security risks. Reading files outside the configured context store
conflicts with that documented boundary.

Severity

Suggested severity: High.

Rationale:

• AV: applies when an application exposes an agent with these tools over a
  network chat/API surface.
• AC: the traversal needs only chosen run_id and agent_id values.
• PR: an unauthenticated or public-facing agent endpoint can be exploited
  without an account. Deployments that require authenticated chat/API access
  may score this as PR:L.
• UI: the attacker directly supplies the prompt/tool argument to the
  exposed agent surface.
• C: conversation history and terminal logs can contain secrets and private
  operational data.
• I:N/A: this report demonstrates read-only disclosure.

If a PraisonAI application exposes these Dynamic Context tools to untrusted or
lower-trust prompts, the lower-trust caller can read files outside the
configured context storage when the target file can be reached with the
tool-imposed suffix:

• history_* tools can disclose reachable .jsonl files;
• terminal_* tools can disclose reachable .log files; and
• cross-run or cross-agent context/history/logs can be disclosed if their path
  is known or guessable.

This can expose conversation history, prompts, terminal output, command logs,
tokens, API keys, cloud credentials, operational data, or other secrets stored
in JSONL/log files readable by the PraisonAI process.

The impact is confidentiality-only in the tested surface. Integrity and
availability are not claimed for this report.

Input manipulates file paths to reach files outside the intended directory, such as configuration or credential files. Typical impact: unauthorized file read or write outside the intended directory.

GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C has a CVSS score of 7.5 (High). The vector is network-reachable, no 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 (4.6.59); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

Treat run_id and agent_id as logical identifiers, not path components.

Recommended fixes:

1. Reject absolute paths, path separators, and traversal components in
   run_id and agent_id.
2. Build candidate paths, call .resolve(), and reject any path that is not
   under self.base_dir.resolve().
3. Apply the same containment helper to history append/read/search/clear/export
   and terminal log/read/search/clear/export paths.
4. Prefer opaque server-generated run and agent IDs in tool schemas.
5. Add regression tests for absolute run_id, ../ in run_id, and ../ in
   agent_id for history and terminal tool factories.

Minimal containment shape:

def _safe_child(self, *parts: str) -> Path:
    candidate = self.base_dir.joinpath(*parts).resolve()
    base = self.base_dir.resolve()
    try:
        candidate.relative_to(base)
    except ValueError as exc:
        raise PermissionError("Context path is outside configured base_dir") from exc
    return candidate

Pair this with an identifier allowlist, because run_id and agent_id should
not need filesystem syntax.

1. What is GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C? GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C is a high-severity path traversal vulnerability in praisonai (pip), affecting versions >= 3.8.1, <= 4.6.58. It is fixed in 4.6.59. Input manipulates file paths to reach files outside the intended directory, such as configuration or credential files.
2. How severe is GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C? GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C has a CVSS score of 7.5 (High). 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 are affected by GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C? praisonai (pip) versions >= 3.8.1, <= 4.6.58 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C? Yes. GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C is fixed in 4.6.59. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C 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 GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C 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 GHSA-22CJ-M4WF-FV2C? Upgrade praisonai to 4.6.59 or later.