CVE-2026-60085: PraisonAI Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

HIGH
Advisory Identifier: GHSA-5r6c-gj4g-r697
CWE-273
Published
Advisory Summary

CVE-2026-60085 is a HIGH remote code execution vulnerability (CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges) affecting PraisonAI libraries in the PyPI ecosystem. The issue involves securitypolicy command/path/import restrictions are completely unenforced by the default subprocesssandbox backend. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 4.6.78.

CVE-2026-60085 at a Glance

CVE Identifier CVE-2026-60085
GHSA Identifier GHSA-5r6c-gj4g-r697
Severity HIGH
CVSS v3.1 Base Score N/A
CWE Classification CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges
Affected Product PraisonAI
Package Ecosystem PyPI
Published Date
Last Updated

How to Fix CVE-2026-60085

To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected PraisonAI dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.

praisonai fixed: 4.6.78
pip install praisonai>=4.6.78
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:

pip show praisonai

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your Python environment is affected by CVE-2026-60085, inspect your installed packages using pip:

pip show praisonai

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of PraisonAI in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 4.6.78), your application is affected.

Note: The pip show praisonai command checks currently installed packages in your active Python environment.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis

This vulnerability is classified under CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges, where the product attempts to drop privileges but does not check or incorrectly checks to see if the drop succeeded. In PraisonAI, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.

Source Advisory Statement

Summary SecurityPolicy in praisonaiagents/sandbox/config.py is a documented configuration data class with fields for allow_subprocess, allowed_paths, blocked_paths, allowed_commands, blocked_commands, allowed_imports, and blocked_imports. Its strict() classmethod is explicitly described as creating "a strict security policy for untrusted code," setting allow_subprocess=False and allow_file_write=False, and inheriting default blocked_paths (/etc/passwd, /etc/shadow, ~/.ssh, ~/.aws, ~/.config) and blocked_commands (rm -rf, dd, mkfs, fdisk, shutdown, reboot). The default sandbox backend, Subprocess Sandbox (praisonai/sandbox/subprocess.py), implements code/command execution by writing input to a temp file and invoking it via asyncio.create_subprocess_exec() directly, with no checking of any kind against blocked_commands, blocked_imports, blocked_paths, allow_subprocess, or allow_file_write. A search across every sandbox backend file in the repository confirms these fields are referenced nowhere outside the data class that declares them. Only allow_network and max_output_size are actually consulted. Verification Using a Security Policy.strict()-configured Sandbox Config(sandbox_type="subprocess") and the real Subprocess Sandbox: subprocess.run(['id'], ...) executed and returned uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root) — despite allow_subprocess=False. open('/etc/passwd').read() returned the real file contents in full — despite /etc/passwd being explicitly listed in blocked_paths. A shell command containing rm -rf actually created and then deleted a real test directory (confirmed via echo DELETED after the operation) — despite "rm -rf" being explicitly listed in blocked_commands. All three were run against the same sandbox instance in one session, confirming simultaneous failure across the policy's command, path, and subprocess restrictions. Impact Any deployment relying on the default subprocess sandbox type — including via the API's own recommended strict() configuration for untrusted code — receives no actual protection against subprocess creation, sensitive file access, or destructive command execution. Since subprocess requires no extra dependencies and is the default Sandbox Config.sandbox_type, this is plausibly the active backend in many real deployments rather than an edge case. Root cause Security Policy was designed as a backend-agnostic configuration surface, but only allow_network and max_output_size were ever wired into Subprocess Sandbox. The remaining fields exist as fully-documented configuration with no corresponding enforcement code in this backend. Suggested remediation Enforce blocked_commands/blocked_imports/blocked_paths/allow_subprocess/allow_file_write in Subprocess Sandbox before invoking the child process, or — given the well-known limits of denylist-style matching — default to the already-implemented native backend (Landlock/Seatbelt) for untrusted code rather than the unenforced subprocess backend. Consider having SecurityPolicy.strict() raise if instantiated against a backend that cannot enforce its fields.

CVE-2026-60085 Affected PraisonAI Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
4.6.78
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
praisonai
PyPI
< 4.6.78
4.6.78

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-60085?
CVE-2026-60085 is a security vulnerability in PraisonAI involving SecurityPolicy command/path/import restrictions are completely unenforced by the default SubprocessSandbox backend under CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges.
Which PraisonAI versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 4.6.78 across affected packages: praisonai.
What version fixes CVE-2026-60085?
Upgrading to 4.6.78 (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is praisonai affected?
Yes, praisonai is affected in releases prior to 4.6.78. Upgrade your dependency to 4.6.78 or later.
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-60085?
CVE-2026-60085 is classified under CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges (The product attempts to drop privileges but does not check or incorrectly checks to see if the drop succeeded.).
How can I check PyPI dependencies for CVE-2026-60085?
Run the dependency tree command: 'pip show praisonai'. This command lists direct and transitive dependencies in your build configuration so you can verify if a vulnerable version is resolved.
Machine-readable OSV JSON OSV v1.5 Schema
Normalized schema output
{
  "schema_version" : "1.4.0",
  "id" : "GHSA-5r6c-gj4g-r697",
  "modified" : "2026-10-08T21:58:11Z",
  "published" : "2026-10-08T21:58:11Z",
  "aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-60085" ],
  "summary" : "PraisonAI: SecurityPolicy command/path/import restrictions are completely unenforced by the default SubprocessSandbox backend",
  "details" : "Summary\nSecurityPolicy in praisonaiagents/sandbox/config.py is a documented configuration data class with fields for allow_subprocess, allowed_paths, blocked_paths, allowed_commands, blocked_commands, allowed_imports, and blocked_imports. Its strict() classmethod is explicitly described as creating \"a strict security policy for untrusted code,\" setting allow_subprocess=False and allow_file_write=False, and inheriting default blocked_paths (/etc/passwd, /etc/shadow, ~/.ssh, ~/.aws, ~/.config) and blocked_commands (rm -rf, dd, mkfs, fdisk, shutdown, reboot).\nThe default sandbox backend, Subprocess Sandbox (praisonai/sandbox/subprocess.py), implements code/command execution by writing input to a temp file and invoking it via asyncio.create_subprocess_exec() directly, with no checking of any kind against blocked_commands, blocked_imports, blocked_paths, allow_subprocess, or allow_file_write. A search across every sandbox backend file in the repository confirms these fields are referenced nowhere outside the data class that declares them. Only allow_network and max_output_size are actually consulted.\nVerification\nUsing a Security Policy.strict()-configured Sandbox Config(sandbox_type=\"subprocess\") and the real Subprocess Sandbox:\n\nsubprocess.run(['id'], ...) executed and returned uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root) — despite allow_subprocess=False.\nopen('/etc/passwd').read() returned the real file contents in full — despite /etc/passwd being explicitly listed in blocked_paths.\nA shell command containing rm -rf actually created and then deleted a real test directory (confirmed via echo DELETED after the operation) — despite \"rm -rf\" being explicitly listed in blocked_commands.\n\nAll three were run against the same sandbox instance in one session, confirming simultaneous failure across the policy's command, path, and subprocess restrictions.\nImpact\nAny deployment relying on the default subprocess sandbox type — including via the API's own recommended strict() configuration for untrusted code — receives no actual protection against subprocess creation, sensitive file access, or destructive command execution. Since subprocess requires no extra dependencies and is the default Sandbox Config.sandbox_type, this is plausibly the active backend in many real deployments rather than an edge case.\nRoot cause\nSecurity Policy was designed as a backend-agnostic configuration surface, but only allow_network and max_output_size were ever wired into Subprocess Sandbox. The remaining fields exist as fully-documented configuration with no corresponding enforcement code in this backend.\nSuggested remediation\nEnforce blocked_commands/blocked_imports/blocked_paths/allow_subprocess/allow_file_write in Subprocess Sandbox before invoking the child process, or — given the well-known limits of denylist-style matching — default to the already-implemented native backend (Landlock/Seatbelt) for untrusted code rather than the unenforced subprocess backend. Consider having SecurityPolicy.strict() raise if instantiated against a backend that cannot enforce its fields.",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V4",
    "score" : "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "PyPI",
      "name" : "praisonai"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0"
      }, {
        "fixed" : "4.6.78"
      } ]
    } ],
    "database_specific" : {
      "last_known_affected_version_range" : "<= 4.6.77"
    }
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-5r6c-gj4g-r697"
  }, {
    "type" : "ADVISORY",
    "url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-60085"
  }, {
    "type" : "ADVISORY",
    "url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62177"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/praisonai-before-unenforced-security-policy-in-subprocess-sandbox"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-273" ],
    "severity" : "HIGH",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-10-08T21:58:11Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : "2026-07-15T17:16:52Z"
  }
}