GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9

The execute_code tool's subprocess sandbox advertises a three-layer defense (AST validation, text-pattern blocklist, restricted __builtins__). In sandbox mode (the default) only two layers are active, the text-pattern blocklist is skipped, and both remaining layers are bypassed by combining two CPython semantics:

1. Runtime string assembly. The AST validator (src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/tools/python_tools.py:75) enumerates blocked dunder names against ast.Attribute.attr, ast.Call.func.id, and ast.Constant string-substring. Names assembled at runtime (e.g. "_"*2 + "class" + "_"*2) appear in the AST as multiple short ast.Constant nodes, none containing a blocked substring, so the static check passes.
2. C-level attribute access via format-spec. str.format / str.format_map resolve dotted field references through CPython's internal PyObject_GetAttr (do_string_format → get_field). This C path never consults the Python-level getattr binding. The sandbox's _safe_getattr wrapper (python_tools.py:221) is installed only as the getattr name in safe_builtins, so any C-level attribute access, including format-spec field resolution, sidesteps it. format/format_map are also absent from _SANDBOX_BLOCKED_CALLS (python_tools.py:56).

Combined, this yields an arbitrary read primitive over every blocklisted attribute (__class__, __qualname__, __bases__, __base__, function __globals__, __dict__, …).

Affected code

Reproducer

import os
os.environ["PRAISONAI_AUTO_APPROVE"] = "true"
from praisonaiagents.tools.python_tools import execute_code

payload = '''
und = "_" * 2                         # "__" assembled at runtime
key1 = und + "class" + und            # "__class__"
key2 = und + "qualname" + und         # "__qualname__"
fmt_class = "{0." + key1 + "}"
fmt_qual2 = "{0." + key1 + "." + key2 + "}"
print("LEAK_CLASS=" + fmt_class.format(()))
print("LEAK_QUAL2=" + fmt_qual2.format(()))
'''
print(execute_code(payload, sandbox_mode="sandbox", timeout=15))

Observed: stdout = LEAK_CLASS=<class 'tuple'> / LEAK_QUAL2=tuple, success: true, no security error. Both __class__ (one hop) and __class__.__qualname__ (two hops), all blocklisted, are read.

Trust boundary

The @require_approval(risk_level="critical") gate is bypassed when PRAISONAI_AUTO_APPROVE is set (verified: require_approval short-circuits on is_env_auto_approve()). That variable is set by the project's FULL_AUTO autonomy mode, the bots-CLI launchers, and the project's own issue-triage CI workflow, postures where the agent reaches execute_code with no human approval. The payload then arrives via any LLM-visible surface (user message, retrieved document, tool/web/MCP output) and the tool-call machinery passes it as the code argument.

Relationship to GHSA-4mr5-g6f9-cfrh

The code's own comment at python_tools.py:46 cites GHSA-4mr5-g6f9-cfrh, which added __self__ to the blocklist to stop C-builtins leaking builtins via func.__self__. This finding does not bypass that single entry, it bypasses the entire blocklist, because format-spec attribute resolution never consults the blocklist or _safe_getattr. "{0.__self__}".format(print) would leak __self__ regardless of the blocklist. Same defense surface, different mechanism; the GHSA-4mr5 fix does not mitigate this.

Scope (read primitive only)

This reports the read primitive. Turning the read into in-process execution requires a callable bridge; the obvious one (string.Formatter().get_field() returning the live object) is not directly reachable because import string is blocked at the AST layer (no ast.Import). Other bridges may exist; a full execution chain is not claimed here. If one is found, severity rises to ~8.8 (the subprocess has no seccomp/setrlimit/syscall filtering).

GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9 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 (1.6.59); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

1. Add format, format_map to _SANDBOX_BLOCKED_CALLS (blocks the calls at the AST layer; cost: also blocks benign str.format).
2. Or replace str in safe_builtins with a subclass whose format/format_map reject dotted fields resolving to leading-underscore attributes (preserves benign formatting).
3. Or drop sandbox-mode's in-process security claim and document that real isolation requires external sandboxing (gVisor/firejail/container/microVM), which matches what the subprocess provides today.

The text-pattern blocklist present in the direct path (python_tools.py:487-502) is absent from the sandbox path; even if added, the runtime-assembly trick defeats it, so (1) or (2) is required.

Reporter: Kai Aizen / SnailSploit, [email protected], PGP on request. Coordinated disclosure; no public posting.

1. What is GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9? GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in praisonaiagents (pip), affecting versions < 1.6.59. It is fixed in 1.6.59.
2. How severe is GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9? GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9 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 praisonaiagents are affected by GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9? praisonaiagents (pip) versions < 1.6.59 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9? Yes. GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9 is fixed in 1.6.59. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9 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-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9 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-PV2J-RGHR-V5R9? Upgrade praisonaiagents to 1.6.59 or later.