CVE-2026-47417: praisonai-platform Comment Endpoints Accept Any Issue_id Vulnerability
HIGHCVE-2026-47417 is a HIGH (CVSS 8.1) comment endpoints accept any issue_id vulnerability (CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key) affecting praisonai-platform libraries in the PyPI ecosystem. The issue involves comment endpoints accept any issue_id without workspace ownership check, cross-workspace comment read and post idor. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 0.1.4.
CVE-2026-47417 at a Glance
Security Impact
CVSS: 8.1
The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N).
How to Fix CVE-2026-47417
To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected praisonai-platform dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.
pip install praisonai-platform>=0.1.4
Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:
pip show praisonai-platform
How to Check if You Are Affected
To determine whether your Python environment is affected by CVE-2026-47417, inspect your installed packages using pip:
pip show praisonai-platform
Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of praisonai-platform in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 0.1.4), your application is affected.
Note: The pip show praisonai-platform command checks currently installed packages in your active Python environment.
Technical Details
Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis
This vulnerability is classified under CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key, where the system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. In praisonai-platform, 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
CVE-2026-47417 Affected praisonai-platform Versions
1 component(s)| Product / Package | Ecosystem | Affected Versions | Fixed Version |
|---|---|---|---|
|
praisonai-platform
|
PyPI |
< 0.1.4
|
0.1.4
|
References
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-47417?
Which praisonai-platform versions are affected?
What version fixes CVE-2026-47417?
Is praisonai-platform affected?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-47417?
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-47417?
How can I check PyPI dependencies for CVE-2026-47417?
Machine-readable OSV JSON
OSV v1.5 Schema
{
"schema_version" : "1.4.0",
"id" : "GHSA-cp4f-5m9r-5jc2",
"modified" : "2026-06-01T14:19:33Z",
"published" : "2026-06-01T14:19:33Z",
"aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-47417" ],
"summary" : "praisonai-platform: Comment endpoints accept any issue_id without workspace ownership check, cross-workspace comment read and post IDOR",
"details" : "## Summary\n\n**Type:** Insecure Direct Object Reference. The comment endpoints (`POST /workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id}/comments` and `GET .../comments`) gate access on `require_workspace_member(workspace_id)` only, then call `CommentService.create(issue_id=issue_id, ...)` and `CommentService.list_for_issue(issue_id)` without verifying that `issue_id` belongs to `workspace_id`. A user who is a member of any workspace `W1` can read every comment on, and post new comments to, any issue in any other workspace `W2`.\n**File:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py`, lines 143-171; `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/comment_service.py`, lines 19-53.\n**Root cause:** the route extracts `workspace_id` from the URL path and uses it solely for the membership gate, then passes the URL-supplied `issue_id` straight into `CommentService` without confirming that this issue exists in `workspace_id`. `CommentService.list_for_issue(issue_id)` runs `SELECT * FROM comments WHERE issue_id = :issue_id` with no workspace join. `CommentService.create(issue_id=issue_id, ...)` blindly writes a row with that `issue_id`. Both flows trust the URL-supplied issue ID as authoritative even though the membership check guarantees nothing about it.\n\n## Affected Code\n\n**File 1:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py`, lines 143-171.\n\n```python\n@router.post(\"/{issue_id}/comments\", response_model=CommentResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)\nasync def add_comment(\n workspace_id: str,\n issue_id: str,\n body: CommentCreate,\n user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member), # only checks attacker is in workspace_id\n session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),\n):\n svc = CommentService(session)\n comment = await svc.create(\n issue_id=issue_id, # <-- BUG: no validation that issue_id is in workspace_id\n author_id=user.id,\n content=body.content,\n author_type=\"member\" if user.is_user else \"agent\",\n parent_id=body.parent_id,\n )\n return CommentResponse.model_validate(comment)\n\n\n@router.get(\"/{issue_id}/comments\", response_model=List[CommentResponse])\nasync def list_comments(\n workspace_id: str,\n issue_id: str,\n user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),\n session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),\n):\n svc = CommentService(session)\n comments = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id) # <-- BUG: returns comments on any issue\n return [CommentResponse.model_validate(c) for c in comments]\n```\n\n**File 2:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/comment_service.py`, lines 19-53.\n\n```python\nclass CommentService:\n ...\n\n async def create(\n self,\n issue_id: str,\n author_id: str,\n content: str,\n author_type: str = \"member\",\n comment_type: str = \"comment\",\n parent_id: Optional[str] = None,\n ) -> Comment:\n comment = Comment(\n issue_id=issue_id, # <-- accepts any issue_id; no workspace verify\n author_type=author_type,\n author_id=author_id,\n ...\n )\n self._session.add(comment)\n await self._session.flush()\n return comment\n\n async def list_for_issue(self, issue_id: str) -> list[Comment]:\n stmt = (\n select(Comment)\n .where(Comment.issue_id == issue_id) # <-- no JOIN against issues for workspace constraint\n .order_by(Comment.created_at)\n )\n result = await self._session.execute(stmt)\n return list(result.scalars().all())\n```\n\n**Why it's wrong:** the service trusts the caller-supplied `issue_id` as authoritative, but the route layer never verified that this issue belongs to the workspace the membership check covers. The standard FastAPI/SQLAlchemy fix is to first resolve the issue scoped to `workspace_id` (`Issue.id = :issue_id AND Issue.workspace_id = :workspace_id`) and only then proceed to comment operations. The `MemberService.get(workspace_id, user_id)` and `LabelService.list_for_workspace(workspace_id)` calls in the same codebase show the safe predicate; the comment service forgot to apply it.\n\n## Exploit Chain\n\n1. Attacker registers a workspace `W_attacker` (member) and harvests a target issue UUID `I_T` from any side channel: agent prompts that mention issues, the activity feed (`act_svc.log` records `issue_id`), webhook payloads, exported issue dumps, or simply by being a low-privilege observer of the attacker's own workspace whose internals reference foreign issue IDs (cross-workspace links, search across activity events). State: attacker holds `I_T`.\n2. Attacker authenticates and sends `GET /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/comments`. `require_workspace_member(W_attacker, attacker)` passes (attacker is a member of `W_attacker`). State: control flow enters `list_comments` with `workspace_id=W_attacker, issue_id=I_T`.\n3. `CommentService.list_for_issue(I_T)` runs `SELECT * FROM comments WHERE issue_id = 'I_T'` with no workspace constraint. Every comment on the foreign issue is returned: `content` (often the most sensitive part of an issue tracker — bug-report repro steps with secrets, customer PII, internal triage notes), `author_id`, `author_type`, `parent_id`, `created_at`. State: response body is the full comment thread of the foreign issue.\n4. Attacker repeats with `POST /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/comments` and a body of `{\"content\": \"<malicious>\"}`. `CommentService.create(issue_id=I_T, author_id=attacker, ...)` writes a row with the foreign issue's id and the attacker's `author_id`. State: a new comment authored by the attacker appears in the foreign workspace's issue thread, indistinguishable to the foreign workspace's UI from a legitimate cross-workspace mention. Used at scale this becomes a comment-spam / phishing primitive (links in the comment body) targeting another tenant's users.\n5. Final state: any attacker with one workspace-member token can exfiltrate every comment in the multi-tenant deployment given the issue UUIDs, and inject arbitrary comments under their own author identity into any foreign issue. The cross-workspace attribution gap is the worst part: the comment is recorded with the attacker's `author_id`, but the foreign workspace has no member with that id and the foreign workspace's audit logs show no event (the `act_svc.log` call in `add_comment` is omitted).\n\n## Security Impact\n\n**Severity:** sec-high. CVSS 7.6: network attack, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, scope unchanged, high confidentiality (full comment threads), high integrity (cross-workspace comment injection under attacker's own id), no availability claim.\n**Attacker capability:** read every comment on every issue in the multi-tenant deployment given the issue UUIDs; post arbitrary comments under the attacker's identity into any foreign issue, allowing comment-spam, phishing-link injection into another tenant's UI, or social-engineering attribution attacks (the foreign workspace's UI renders a comment whose author belongs to no member of that workspace).\n**Preconditions:** `praisonai-platform` is deployed multi-tenant; the attacker has any membership token; the target issue's UUID is known or guessable.\n**Differential:** source-inspection-verified end-to-end. The asymmetry between `CommentService.list_for_issue(issue_id)` (no workspace predicate) and `LabelService.list_for_workspace(workspace_id)` (correctly workspace-scoped) confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, every comment route first resolves the issue scoped to `workspace_id`, returns 404 if the issue is foreign, and only then proceeds.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nResolve the issue scoped to `workspace_id` at the route layer before dispatching to `CommentService`. This both fixes the read and the write paths and avoids changing the `CommentService` signature.\n\n```diff\n--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py\n+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py\n@@ -141,6 +141,11 @@ async def delete_issue(...):\n # ── Comments ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n\n\n+async def _require_issue_in_workspace(session, workspace_id: str, issue_id: str):\n+ issue = await IssueService(session).get(workspace_id, issue_id) # workspace-scoped get (see companion advisory)\n+ if issue is None:\n+ raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail=\"Issue not found\")\n+\n @router.post(\"/{issue_id}/comments\", response_model=CommentResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)\n async def add_comment(\n workspace_id: str,\n@@ -149,6 +154,7 @@ async def add_comment(\n user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),\n session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),\n ):\n+ await _require_issue_in_workspace(session, workspace_id, issue_id)\n svc = CommentService(session)\n comment = await svc.create(\n issue_id=issue_id,\n@@ -167,5 +173,6 @@ async def list_comments(\n user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),\n session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),\n ):\n+ await _require_issue_in_workspace(session, workspace_id, issue_id)\n svc = CommentService(session)\n comments = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id)\n```\n\nCompanion advisories file the same workspace-scoping gap for `AgentService`, `IssueService`, `ProjectService`, and `LabelService`. Each is a separate exploitable IDOR.",
"severity" : [ {
"type" : "CVSS_V3",
"score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N"
} ],
"affected" : [ {
"package" : {
"ecosystem" : "PyPI",
"name" : "praisonai-platform"
},
"ranges" : [ {
"type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
"events" : [ {
"introduced" : "0"
}, {
"fixed" : "0.1.4"
} ]
} ]
} ],
"references" : [ {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-cp4f-5m9r-5jc2"
}, {
"type" : "PACKAGE",
"url" : "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
} ],
"database_specific" : {
"cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-639" ],
"severity" : "HIGH",
"github_reviewed" : true,
"github_reviewed_at" : "2026-06-01T14:19:33Z",
"nvd_published_at" : null
}
}