CVE-2026-47413: praisonai-platform Any Workspace Member Can Add Vulnerability

CRITICAL
Advisory Identifier: GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh
CVSS 9.6
CWE-269 CWE-862
Published
Advisory Summary

CVE-2026-47413 is a CRITICAL (CVSS 9.6) any workspace member can add vulnerability (CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management) affecting praisonai-platform libraries in the PyPI ecosystem. The issue involves any workspace member can add arbitrary user as owner via post /workspaces/{id}/members. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 0.1.4.

CVE-2026-47413 at a Glance

CVE Identifier CVE-2026-47413
GHSA Identifier GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh
Severity CRITICAL
CVSS v3.1 Base Score 9.6
CWE Classification CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management
Affected Product praisonai-platform
Package Ecosystem PyPI
Published Date
Last Updated

Security Impact

CVSS: 9.6

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:C/C:H/I:H/A:N).

Attack Vector Network (AV:N)
Attack Complexity Low (AC:L)
Privileges Required Low (PR:L)
User Interaction None (UI:N)
Scope Changed (S:C)
Confidentiality High (C:H)
Integrity High (I:H)
Availability None (A:N)

How to Fix CVE-2026-47413

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.

praisonai-platform fixed: 0.1.4
pip install praisonai-platform>=0.1.4
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-platform

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your Python environment is affected by CVE-2026-47413, 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-269: Improper Privilege Management, where the product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor. 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

## Summary **Type:** Privilege escalation / cross-tenant member injection. The `POST /workspaces/{workspace_id}/members` endpoint is gated only by `require_workspace_member(workspace_id)` (default `min_role="member"`) and forwards the request body's `user_id` and `role` straight into `MemberService.add(workspace_id, user_id, role)`, which has no caller-permission check. A user with the lowest workspace privilege can add any user (including a new attacker-controlled second account, or an existing account they want to grief) as owner of the workspace. **File:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py`, lines 92-101; `services/member_service.py`, lines 26-38. **Root cause:** `MemberService.add` validates only that `role` is in `VALID_ROLES = {"owner", "admin", "member"}` — the value, not the caller's right to assign it. The route's `Depends(require_workspace_member)` resolves to the default `min_role="member"`. So a member-level token plus one POST gives the attacker an alternate identity with owner role inside the same workspace, bypassing every owner-only operation that *would* otherwise gate them. ## Affected Code **File 1:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py`, lines 92-101. ```python @router.post("/{workspace_id}/members", response_model=MemberResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED) async def add_member( workspace_id: str, body: MemberAdd, user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member), # <-- BUG: defaults to min_role="member" session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db), ): member_svc = MemberService(session) member = await member_svc.add(workspace_id, body.user_id, body.role) # <-- writes any (user, role) return MemberResponse.model_validate(member) ``` **File 2:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/member_service.py`, lines 26-38. ```python async def add( self, workspace_id: str, user_id: str, role: str = "member", ) -> Member: """Add a user to a workspace.""" if role not in VALID_ROLES: # only validates the value raise ValueError(f"Invalid role: {role}. Must be one of {VALID_ROLES}") member = Member(workspace_id=workspace_id, user_id=user_id, role=role) self._session.add(member) # <-- BUG: no caller-permission check await self._session.flush() return member ``` **Why it's wrong:** workspace member management is the textbook capability that must be gated on owner role. The role hierarchy is implemented (`MemberService.has_role`, member_service.py:80-96), the dependency-tunable `min_role` parameter exists (`require_workspace_member(min_role)`, deps.py:58), but the `POST .../members` route uses neither. The `VALID_ROLES` enum check is purely cosmetic — it accepts `"owner"` from any caller because the route never asked whether the caller has the right to assign that role. ## Exploit Chain 1. Attacker registers two accounts (or recruits a member account on the target workspace `W`). Account A is an existing member of `W`; Account B is a fresh signup the attacker controls (any account on the platform — `auth/register` is open by default). State: attacker holds tokens for both A and B. 2. Attacker authenticates as Account A and POSTs `Authorization: Bearer <A_jwt>` to `POST /workspaces/W/members` with body `{"user_id": "<B_user_id>", "role": "owner"}`. State: control flow enters `add_member`. 3. `require_workspace_member(W, A)` passes (A is a member). `MemberService.add(W, B, "owner")` writes a new row `Member(workspace_id=W, user_id=B, role="owner")`. State: Account B is now a workspace-W owner. 4. Attacker switches to Account B and acts as workspace owner — change settings, add/remove members, delete the workspace, or pivot to the companion advisories' primitives. State: attacker holds owner of any workspace they had member access to, via a fresh attacker-controlled identity that the original workspace's audit logs cannot easily attribute to A. 5. Final state: with one member-level token plus one POST, the attacker plants an owner-role identity on any workspace they can reach. The same primitive lets the attacker invite a competitor or external-vendor account into the workspace as owner, exfiltrating the workspace's content under that competitor's name. ## Security Impact **Severity:** sec-critical. CVSS 9.1: network attack, low complexity, low privileges (member tier), no user interaction, scope changed (the new owner is a different security principal), high confidentiality and integrity, no availability claim. **Attacker capability:** with one workspace-member token plus one POST request, the attacker grants owner-tier access to any user_id on the platform. From there, full workspace control via the Account B token, plus indirect attribution: the original workspace's audit logs see "user A added user B as owner" but the audit trail cannot tell that B is attacker-controlled. **Preconditions:** `praisonai-platform` is deployed multi-tenant; the attacker has any membership token in the target workspace; the attacker can register or knows any other user_id on the platform. **Differential:** source-inspection-verified. The asymmetry between `MemberService.has_role` (clearly tiered) and `add_member`'s default `min_role="member"` confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, the gate refuses the member-tier token, the elevated POST returns 403, and the second-identity owner is never created. ## Suggested Fix ```diff --- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py +++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py @@ -90,11 +90,15 @@ +def _require_workspace_owner(workspace_id: str, user, session): + return require_workspace_member(workspace_id, user, session, min_role="owner") + @router.post("/{workspace_id}/members", response_model=MemberResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED) async def add_member( workspace_id: str, body: MemberAdd, - user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member), + user: AuthIdentity = Depends(_require_workspace_owner), session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db), ): member_svc = MemberService(session) + if body.role == "owner" and not await member_svc.has_role(workspace_id, user.id, "owner"): + raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail="Only owners can add other owners") member = await member_svc.add(workspace_id, body.user_id, body.role) ``` The four other workspace mutation endpoints (`update_workspace`, `delete_workspace`, `update_member_role`, `remove_member`) exhibit the same default-min-role gap and are filed as their own advisories.

CVE-2026-47413 Affected praisonai-platform Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
0.1.4
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
praisonai-platform
PyPI
< 0.1.4
0.1.4

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-47413?
CVE-2026-47413 is a security vulnerability in praisonai-platform involving Any workspace member can add arbitrary user as owner via POST /workspaces/{id}/members under CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management.
Which praisonai-platform versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 0.1.4 across affected packages: praisonai-platform.
What version fixes CVE-2026-47413?
Upgrading to 0.1.4 (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is praisonai-platform affected?
Yes, praisonai-platform is affected in releases prior to 0.1.4. Upgrade your dependency to 0.1.4 or later.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-47413?
CVE-2026-47413 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.6 (CRITICAL) with vector string CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N.
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-47413?
CVE-2026-47413 is classified under CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management (The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.).
How can I check PyPI dependencies for CVE-2026-47413?
Run the dependency tree command: 'pip show praisonai-platform'. 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-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh",
  "modified" : "2026-06-01T14:23:39Z",
  "published" : "2026-06-01T14:23:39Z",
  "aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-47413" ],
  "summary" : "praisonai-platform: Any workspace member can add arbitrary user as owner via POST /workspaces/{id}/members",
  "details" : "## Summary\n\n**Type:** Privilege escalation / cross-tenant member injection. The `POST /workspaces/{workspace_id}/members` endpoint is gated only by `require_workspace_member(workspace_id)` (default `min_role=\"member\"`) and forwards the request body's `user_id` and `role` straight into `MemberService.add(workspace_id, user_id, role)`, which has no caller-permission check. A user with the lowest workspace privilege can add any user (including a new attacker-controlled second account, or an existing account they want to grief) as owner of the workspace.\n**File:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py`, lines 92-101; `services/member_service.py`, lines 26-38.\n**Root cause:** `MemberService.add` validates only that `role` is in `VALID_ROLES = {\"owner\", \"admin\", \"member\"}` — the value, not the caller's right to assign it. The route's `Depends(require_workspace_member)` resolves to the default `min_role=\"member\"`. So a member-level token plus one POST gives the attacker an alternate identity with owner role inside the same workspace, bypassing every owner-only operation that *would* otherwise gate them.\n\n## Affected Code\n\n**File 1:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py`, lines 92-101.\n\n```python\n@router.post(\"/{workspace_id}/members\", response_model=MemberResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)\nasync def add_member(\n    workspace_id: str,\n    body: MemberAdd,\n    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),         # <-- BUG: defaults to min_role=\"member\"\n    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),\n):\n    member_svc = MemberService(session)\n    member = await member_svc.add(workspace_id, body.user_id, body.role)  # <-- writes any (user, role)\n    return MemberResponse.model_validate(member)\n```\n\n**File 2:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/member_service.py`, lines 26-38.\n\n```python\nasync def add(\n    self,\n    workspace_id: str,\n    user_id: str,\n    role: str = \"member\",\n) -> Member:\n    \"\"\"Add a user to a workspace.\"\"\"\n    if role not in VALID_ROLES:                                      # only validates the value\n        raise ValueError(f\"Invalid role: {role}. Must be one of {VALID_ROLES}\")\n    member = Member(workspace_id=workspace_id, user_id=user_id, role=role)\n    self._session.add(member)                                        # <-- BUG: no caller-permission check\n    await self._session.flush()\n    return member\n```\n\n**Why it's wrong:** workspace member management is the textbook capability that must be gated on owner role. The role hierarchy is implemented (`MemberService.has_role`, member_service.py:80-96), the dependency-tunable `min_role` parameter exists (`require_workspace_member(min_role)`, deps.py:58), but the `POST .../members` route uses neither. The `VALID_ROLES` enum check is purely cosmetic — it accepts `\"owner\"` from any caller because the route never asked whether the caller has the right to assign that role.\n\n## Exploit Chain\n\n1. Attacker registers two accounts (or recruits a member account on the target workspace `W`). Account A is an existing member of `W`; Account B is a fresh signup the attacker controls (any account on the platform — `auth/register` is open by default). State: attacker holds tokens for both A and B.\n2. Attacker authenticates as Account A and POSTs `Authorization: Bearer <A_jwt>` to `POST /workspaces/W/members` with body `{\"user_id\": \"<B_user_id>\", \"role\": \"owner\"}`. State: control flow enters `add_member`.\n3. `require_workspace_member(W, A)` passes (A is a member). `MemberService.add(W, B, \"owner\")` writes a new row `Member(workspace_id=W, user_id=B, role=\"owner\")`. State: Account B is now a workspace-W owner.\n4. Attacker switches to Account B and acts as workspace owner — change settings, add/remove members, delete the workspace, or pivot to the companion advisories' primitives. State: attacker holds owner of any workspace they had member access to, via a fresh attacker-controlled identity that the original workspace's audit logs cannot easily attribute to A.\n5. Final state: with one member-level token plus one POST, the attacker plants an owner-role identity on any workspace they can reach. The same primitive lets the attacker invite a competitor or external-vendor account into the workspace as owner, exfiltrating the workspace's content under that competitor's name.\n\n## Security Impact\n\n**Severity:** sec-critical. CVSS 9.1: network attack, low complexity, low privileges (member tier), no user interaction, scope changed (the new owner is a different security principal), high confidentiality and integrity, no availability claim.\n**Attacker capability:** with one workspace-member token plus one POST request, the attacker grants owner-tier access to any user_id on the platform. From there, full workspace control via the Account B token, plus indirect attribution: the original workspace's audit logs see \"user A added user B as owner\" but the audit trail cannot tell that B is attacker-controlled.\n**Preconditions:** `praisonai-platform` is deployed multi-tenant; the attacker has any membership token in the target workspace; the attacker can register or knows any other user_id on the platform.\n**Differential:** source-inspection-verified. The asymmetry between `MemberService.has_role` (clearly tiered) and `add_member`'s default `min_role=\"member\"` confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, the gate refuses the member-tier token, the elevated POST returns 403, and the second-identity owner is never created.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\n```diff\n--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py\n+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py\n@@ -90,11 +90,15 @@\n+def _require_workspace_owner(workspace_id: str, user, session):\n+    return require_workspace_member(workspace_id, user, session, min_role=\"owner\")\n+\n @router.post(\"/{workspace_id}/members\", response_model=MemberResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)\n async def add_member(\n     workspace_id: str,\n     body: MemberAdd,\n-    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),\n+    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(_require_workspace_owner),\n     session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),\n ):\n     member_svc = MemberService(session)\n+    if body.role == \"owner\" and not await member_svc.has_role(workspace_id, user.id, \"owner\"):\n+        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail=\"Only owners can add other owners\")\n     member = await member_svc.add(workspace_id, body.user_id, body.role)\n```\n\nThe four other workspace mutation endpoints (`update_workspace`, `delete_workspace`, `update_member_role`, `remove_member`) exhibit the same default-min-role gap and are filed as their own advisories.",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V3",
    "score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-269", "CWE-862" ],
    "severity" : "CRITICAL",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-06-01T14:23:39Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : null
  }
}