CWE-862
Weakness Allowed-with-ReviewMissing Authorization
Abstraction: Class · Status: Incomplete
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Dimensions
- Behavior-Property: Missing
- Behavior-Type: Authorization
Mapping guidance
This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriate
Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit
Relationships and members
Modes of introduction
OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
Authorization weaknesses may arise when a single-user application is ported to a multi-user environment.
A developer may introduce authorization weaknesses because of a lack of understanding about the underlying technologies. For example, a developer may assume that attackers cannot modify certain inputs such as headers or cookies.
Detection methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis is useful for detecting commonly-used idioms for authorization. A tool may be able to analyze related configuration files, such as .htaccess in Apache web servers, or detect the usage of commonly-used authorization libraries.
Generally, automated static analysis tools have difficulty detecting custom authorization schemes. In addition, the software's design may include some functionality that is accessible to any user and does not require an authorization check; an automated technique that detects the absence of authorization may report false positives.
Effectiveness: Limited
Automated Dynamic Analysis
Automated dynamic analysis may find many or all possible interfaces that do not require authorization, but manual analysis is required to determine if the lack of authorization violates business logic.
Manual Analysis
This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session.
Specifically, manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of custom authorization mechanisms.
Effectiveness: Moderate
These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules. However, manual efforts might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints.
Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Web Application Scanner
Web Services Scanner
Database Scanners
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Host Application Interface Scanner
Fuzz Tester
Framework-based Fuzzer
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Source code Weakness Analyzer
Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Architecture or Design Review
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Effectiveness: High
Notes
Terminology
Assuming a user with a given identity, authorization is the process of determining whether that user can access a given resource, based on the user's privileges and any permissions or other access-control specifications that apply to the resource.
Content history
Suggested mappings to ISA/IEC 62443.
Provided diagram to improve CWE usability
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Relationships
updated Detection_Factors
updated Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
updated References
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Alternate_Terms, Observed_Examples
updated Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Observed_Examples
updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
updated References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Relationships, Terminology_Notes
updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, References
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Applicable_Platforms, Observed_Examples, Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Dimensions, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
19863 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-88Q8-635Q-XGWM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-02 21:32 – Updated: 2026-11-03 00:31In addDragDropListener of WindowManagerService.java, there is a possible permission bypass due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58873"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-02T21:17:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In addDragDropListener of WindowManagerService.java, there is a possible permission bypass due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-88q8-635q-xgwm",
"modified": "2026-11-03T00:31:24Z",
"published": "2026-11-02T21:32:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58873"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/xr/2026/2026-11-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-88QQ-RX45-9FWM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-30 06:30 – Updated: 2024-08-30 06:30The Tutor LMS Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized administrative actions execution due to a missing capability checks on multiple functions like treport_quiz_atttempt_delete and tutor_gc_class_action in all versions up to, and including, 2.7.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with the subscriber-level access and above, to preform an administrative actions on the site, like comments, posts or users deletion, viewing notifications, etc.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-5784"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-30T04:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Tutor LMS Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized administrative actions execution due to a missing capability checks on multiple functions like treport_quiz_atttempt_delete and tutor_gc_class_action in all versions up to, and including, 2.7.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with the subscriber-level access and above, to preform an administrative actions on the site, like comments, posts or users deletion, viewing notifications, etc.",
"id": "GHSA-88qq-rx45-9fwm",
"modified": "2024-08-30T06:30:38Z",
"published": "2024-08-30T06:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5784"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tutorlms.com/releases/id/299"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/aa5c23ed-7239-40e1-a795-1ae8d4c2d6c8?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-88V2-P2R7-RVPX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-17 18:30 – Updated: 2025-01-22 18:31An information leak vulnerability was discovered in Samba's LDAP server. Due to missing access control checks, an authenticated but unprivileged attacker could discover the names and preserved attributes of deleted objects in the LDAP store.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-14628"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-17T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An information leak vulnerability was discovered in Samba\u0027s LDAP server. Due to missing access control checks, an authenticated but unprivileged attacker could discover the names and preserved attributes of deleted objects in the LDAP store.",
"id": "GHSA-88v2-p2r7-rvpx",
"modified": "2025-01-22T18:31:48Z",
"published": "2023-01-17T18:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-14628"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1625445"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13595"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6DK57HQRTCDOZDIIICYWQ4Z5IQXTWVVW"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ACVMYEP5KJRL3FWSCZW2MQZ26IVPXY62"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230223-0008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/11/28/4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-88VF-WF7G-M4GV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-22 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-28 18:30Missing Authorization vulnerability in peachpayments Peach Payments Gateway wc-peach-payments-gateway allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Peach Payments Gateway: from n/a through <= 3.3.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-67942"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-22T17:16:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in peachpayments Peach Payments Gateway wc-peach-payments-gateway allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Peach Payments Gateway: from n/a through \u003c= 3.3.6.",
"id": "GHSA-88vf-wf7g-m4gv",
"modified": "2026-01-28T18:30:41Z",
"published": "2026-01-22T18:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-67942"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wc-peach-payments-gateway/vulnerability/wordpress-peach-payments-gateway-plugin-3-3-6-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-88WG-667H-CXJ5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-21 12:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Missing Authorization vulnerability in Rextheme WP VR allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP VR: from n/a through 8.5.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-49293"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-21T12:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Authorization vulnerability in Rextheme WP VR allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects WP VR: from n/a through 8.5.4.",
"id": "GHSA-88wg-667h-cxj5",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:09Z",
"published": "2024-10-21T12:30:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-49293"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wpvr/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-vr-plugin-8-5-4-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/wpvr/wordpress-wp-vr-plugin-8-5-4-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-88WJ-FXPV-PC7G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-16 09:30 – Updated: 2024-10-16 09:30The Download Monitor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass due to a missing capability check on several REST-API routes related to reporting in versions up to, and including, 4.7.51. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to view user data and other sensitive information intended for administrators.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4972"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-16T07:15:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Download Monitor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass due to a missing capability check on several REST-API routes related to reporting in versions up to, and including, 4.7.51. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to view user data and other sensitive information intended for administrators.",
"id": "GHSA-88wj-fxpv-pc7g",
"modified": "2024-10-16T09:30:31Z",
"published": "2024-10-16T09:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4972"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/2822758/download-monitor/trunk/src/Admin/Reports/class-dlm-reports.php?contextall=1\u0026old=2821522\u0026old_path=%2Fdownload-monitor%2Ftrunk%2Fsrc%2FAdmin%2FReports%2Fclass-dlm-reports.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a9000c52-fdd7-43e2-ae6a-9f127c4a9fcd?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8929-X24H-JV8R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-28 12:32 – Updated: 2025-03-06 15:34The NextMove Lite – Thank You Page for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized submission of data due to a missing capability check on the _submit_uninstall_reason_action() function in all versions up to, and including, 2.19.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to submit a deactivation reason on behalf of a site.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-10860"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-28T10:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The NextMove Lite \u2013 Thank You Page for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized submission of data due to a missing capability check on the _submit_uninstall_reason_action() function in all versions up to, and including, 2.19.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to submit a deactivation reason on behalf of a site.",
"id": "GHSA-8929-x24h-jv8r",
"modified": "2025-03-06T15:34:43Z",
"published": "2025-02-28T12:32:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-10860"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3246927"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/5cefecf8-46dc-4ae1-9e94-b724beb7136f?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-892R-P3JQ-JP24
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 13:57 – Updated: 2026-07-20 21:24AgentOS remains unauthenticated after GHSA-pm96 patched version and allows remote agent invocation
Summary
PraisonAI's AgentOS FastAPI deployment surface remains unauthenticated in
current main and in releases after the published patched version for
GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x / CVE-2026-40151.
The public AgentOS advisory is published as an instruction-disclosure issue
with affected versions < 4.5.128 and patched version 4.5.128. However,
v4.5.128, latest release v4.6.57, and current main still register
GET /api/agents and POST /api/chat without authentication. The chat route
directly calls agent.chat(request.message). No-auth and wrong-bearer requests
both execute the deployed agent.
This is broader than passive metadata disclosure. In any deployment where AgentOS wraps agents with tools, private context, memory, API integrations, or cost-bearing model calls, an unauthenticated reachable client can drive those agents.
Affected Product
- Repository:
MervinPraison/PraisonAI - Package:
praisonai - Component:
src/praisonai/praisonai/app/agentos.py - Config component:
src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/app/config.py - Public advisory incomplete-fix reference:
GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x/CVE-2026-40151
Confirmed affected dynamically:
v4.5.126v4.5.128(published patched version forGHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x)v4.6.9v4.6.10v4.6.56v4.6.57- current main
2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1
Static source review found the same unauthenticated route pattern and
0.0.0.0 default in v4.2.1.
Suggested affected range: >= 4.2.1, <= 4.6.57.
Root Cause
AgentOSConfig / AgentAppConfig defaults the deployment host to all
interfaces and has no authentication fields:
name: str = "PraisonAI App"
host: str = "0.0.0.0"
port: int = 8000
api_prefix: str = "/api"
AgentOS._register_routes() registers public agent metadata and chat routes
without middleware, dependency, API key check, bearer-token check, or startup
fail-closed guard:
@app.get(f"{self.config.api_prefix}/agents")
async def list_agents():
return {"agents": [...]}
@app.post(f"{self.config.api_prefix}/chat", response_model=ChatResponse)
async def chat(request: ChatRequest):
...
response = agent.chat(request.message)
A wrong Authorization header is ignored because the route does not inspect it.
Current main also has a root-export bug where from praisonai import AgentOS
raises ImportError, but this does not mitigate the issue. The same class
remains reachable through from praisonai import AgentApp and
from praisonai.app import AgentOS.
Why This Is Not Intended Behavior
PraisonAI's security documentation says API servers were hardened so anonymous
requests return 401 and default binding changed from 0.0.0.0 to
127.0.0.1 after the prior unauthenticated API server class.
The API Server Authentication docs say bearer auth is enabled by default,
disabling auth is not recommended for production, and 0.0.0.0 should be used
only behind an authenticating proxy.
The local PoV includes a hardened sibling control for the generated deploy API on current main. It returns:
- no auth:
401 - wrong bearer:
401 - correct bearer:
200
AgentOS remains outside that control plane and still accepts no-auth and
wrong-bearer /api/chat requests.
Local PoV
The PoV is local-only. It uses FastAPI's in-process test client, a stub agent, and a temporary file side effect. It does not start a network listener, call an LLM provider, or contact any external service.
Command:
env PYTHONPATH="artifacts/repos/praisonai-current/src/praisonai:artifacts/repos/praisonai-current/src/praisonai-agents" \
uv run --with fastapi --with httpx --with flask --with flask-cors \
--with pydantic --with typing-extensions --with rich --with python-dotenv \
submission-bundle/praisonai-prai-cand-007-agentos-incomplete-auth-fix/poc/prai_cand_007_agentos_incomplete_auth_fix.py \
--repo artifacts/repos/praisonai-current \
--label current-head
Current-head result summary:
{
"describe": "v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab",
"head": "2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1",
"agentos_vulnerable": true,
"entrypoints": [
{
"entrypoint": "agentapp_alias",
"statuses": [200, 200, 200],
"side_effects": ["no-auth-marker", "wrong-bearer-marker"]
},
{
"entrypoint": "direct_agentos",
"statuses": [200, 200, 200],
"side_effects": ["no-auth-marker", "wrong-bearer-marker"]
}
],
"deploy_api_control": {
"control_passed": true,
"statuses": [401, 401, 200]
}
}
The three AgentOS statuses are for:
- unauthenticated
GET /api/agents; - unauthenticated
POST /api/chat; - wrong-bearer
POST /api/chat.
The side-effect list proves both unauthenticated chat requests invoked the agent method.
Minimal inline reproducer:
from pathlib import Path
from tempfile import TemporaryDirectory
from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
from praisonai import AgentApp
from praisonaiagents import AgentOSConfig
class StubAgent:
name = "pov_agentos_agent"
role = "tester"
instructions = "private instruction marker"
def __init__(self, out):
self.out = out
def chat(self, message):
self.out.write_text(self.out.read_text() + message + "\n")
return "PRAI_CAND_007_AGENTOS_EXECUTED:" + message
with TemporaryDirectory() as tmp:
side_effect = Path(tmp) / "side_effects.txt"
side_effect.write_text("")
app = AgentApp(
agents=[StubAgent(side_effect)],
config=AgentOSConfig(host="0.0.0.0", port=8000),
)
client = TestClient(app.get_app())
assert client.get("/api/agents").status_code == 200
assert client.post("/api/chat", json={"message": "no-auth"}).status_code == 200
assert client.post(
"/api/chat",
headers={"Authorization": "Bearer definitely-wrong"},
json={"message": "wrong-bearer"},
).status_code == 200
assert side_effect.read_text().splitlines() == ["no-auth", "wrong-bearer"]
Version Sweep
| Target | Result |
|---|---|
v4.5.126 |
vulnerable |
v4.5.128 |
vulnerable |
v4.6.9 |
vulnerable |
v4.6.10 |
vulnerable |
v4.6.56 |
vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns 401/401/200 |
v4.6.57 |
vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns 401/401/200 |
current 2f9677abb |
vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns 401/401/200 |
Evidence files are retained locally under the bundle's evidence/ directory
and can be provided if useful.
Duplicate / Incomplete-Fix Notes
This report is related to GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x / CVE-2026-40151. The
published advisory describes AgentOS instruction disclosure and lists
4.5.128 as patched. It also mentions unauthenticated /api/chat as a chained
instruction-extraction path.
The current report should be treated as an incomplete fix / affected-range correction with a broader demonstrated impact:
- the published patched version
v4.5.128still reproduces; - latest release
v4.6.57still reproduces; - current main still reproduces;
- the PoV proves unauthorized agent invocation and side effects, not only instruction disclosure.
This is distinct from private PRAI-CAND-003 / GHSA-x8cv-xmq7-p8xp, which
covers praisonaiagents.AgentTeam.launch() routes. This report covers
praisonai.app.AgentOS and AgentApp alias routes.
Impact
If an operator exposes an AgentOS app on a reachable interface, any client that can reach it can:
- enumerate deployed agents through
GET /api/agents; - read agent names, roles, and instruction snippets;
- invoke the default agent or a named agent through
POST /api/chat; - trigger downstream tools, private context reads, memory accesses, API integrations, browser actions, or other side effects attached to the agent;
- consume model/API budget through repeated invocation.
The exact downstream impact depends on the deployed agents. The framework-level boundary failure is that a production deployment surface exposes agent control without authentication and defaults to binding on all interfaces.
Suggested Fix
Use the same security model already applied to generated API deployments:
- add authentication fields to
AgentOSConfig/AgentAppConfig; - default auth to enabled;
- default bind host to
127.0.0.1; - reject no-auth and wrong-bearer requests for
GET /api/agentsandPOST /api/chat; - fail closed for non-loopback binds unless auth is configured or an explicit unsafe development opt-out is set;
- avoid returning instruction text from unauthenticated metadata endpoints;
- add regression tests for no auth, wrong bearer, correct bearer, and external bind without auth.
Maintainers can either update GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x with the corrected affected
range and broader impact or publish a separate incomplete-fix advisory.
Suggested Severity
Suggested severity: Critical.
The Critical score matches the unauthenticated agent-control model: network attacker, low complexity, no privileges, no user interaction, and high deployment-dependent impact when agents are connected to tools, private data, or cost-bearing services. If maintainers score only a minimal no-tool demo agent, the impact may be lower, but the current default framework behavior is still unauthenticated agent invocation.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.6.57"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "praisonai"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.2.1"
},
{
"fixed": "4.6.59"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57116"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-306",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T13:57:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "# AgentOS remains unauthenticated after GHSA-pm96 patched version and allows remote agent invocation\n\n## Summary\n\nPraisonAI\u0027s `AgentOS` FastAPI deployment surface remains unauthenticated in\ncurrent main and in releases after the published patched version for\n`GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x` / `CVE-2026-40151`.\n\nThe public AgentOS advisory is published as an instruction-disclosure issue\nwith affected versions `\u003c 4.5.128` and patched version `4.5.128`. However,\n`v4.5.128`, latest release `v4.6.57`, and current main still register\n`GET /api/agents` and `POST /api/chat` without authentication. The chat route\ndirectly calls `agent.chat(request.message)`. No-auth and wrong-bearer requests\nboth execute the deployed agent.\n\nThis is broader than passive metadata disclosure. In any deployment where\nAgentOS wraps agents with tools, private context, memory, API integrations, or\ncost-bearing model calls, an unauthenticated reachable client can drive those\nagents.\n\n## Affected Product\n\n- Repository: `MervinPraison/PraisonAI`\n- Package: `praisonai`\n- Component: `src/praisonai/praisonai/app/agentos.py`\n- Config component: `src/praisonai-agents/praisonaiagents/app/config.py`\n- Public advisory incomplete-fix reference: `GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x` /\n `CVE-2026-40151`\n\nConfirmed affected dynamically:\n\n- `v4.5.126`\n- `v4.5.128` (published patched version for `GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x`)\n- `v4.6.9`\n- `v4.6.10`\n- `v4.6.56`\n- `v4.6.57`\n- current main `2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1`\n\nStatic source review found the same unauthenticated route pattern and\n`0.0.0.0` default in `v4.2.1`.\n\nSuggested affected range: `\u003e= 4.2.1, \u003c= 4.6.57`.\n\n## Root Cause\n\n`AgentOSConfig` / `AgentAppConfig` defaults the deployment host to all\ninterfaces and has no authentication fields:\n\n```python\nname: str = \"PraisonAI App\"\nhost: str = \"0.0.0.0\"\nport: int = 8000\napi_prefix: str = \"/api\"\n```\n\n`AgentOS._register_routes()` registers public agent metadata and chat routes\nwithout middleware, dependency, API key check, bearer-token check, or startup\nfail-closed guard:\n\n```python\n@app.get(f\"{self.config.api_prefix}/agents\")\nasync def list_agents():\n return {\"agents\": [...]}\n\n@app.post(f\"{self.config.api_prefix}/chat\", response_model=ChatResponse)\nasync def chat(request: ChatRequest):\n ...\n response = agent.chat(request.message)\n```\n\nA wrong `Authorization` header is ignored because the route does not inspect it.\n\nCurrent main also has a root-export bug where `from praisonai import AgentOS`\nraises `ImportError`, but this does not mitigate the issue. The same class\nremains reachable through `from praisonai import AgentApp` and\n`from praisonai.app import AgentOS`.\n\n## Why This Is Not Intended Behavior\n\nPraisonAI\u0027s security documentation says API servers were hardened so anonymous\nrequests return `401` and default binding changed from `0.0.0.0` to\n`127.0.0.1` after the prior unauthenticated API server class.\n\nThe API Server Authentication docs say bearer auth is enabled by default,\ndisabling auth is not recommended for production, and `0.0.0.0` should be used\nonly behind an authenticating proxy.\n\nThe local PoV includes a hardened sibling control for the generated deploy API\non current main. It returns:\n\n- no auth: `401`\n- wrong bearer: `401`\n- correct bearer: `200`\n\nAgentOS remains outside that control plane and still accepts no-auth and\nwrong-bearer `/api/chat` requests.\n\n## Local PoV\n\nThe PoV is local-only. It uses FastAPI\u0027s in-process test client, a stub agent,\nand a temporary file side effect. It does not start a network listener, call an\nLLM provider, or contact any external service.\n\nCommand:\n\n```bash\nenv PYTHONPATH=\"artifacts/repos/praisonai-current/src/praisonai:artifacts/repos/praisonai-current/src/praisonai-agents\" \\\n uv run --with fastapi --with httpx --with flask --with flask-cors \\\n --with pydantic --with typing-extensions --with rich --with python-dotenv \\\n submission-bundle/praisonai-prai-cand-007-agentos-incomplete-auth-fix/poc/prai_cand_007_agentos_incomplete_auth_fix.py \\\n --repo artifacts/repos/praisonai-current \\\n --label current-head\n```\n\nCurrent-head result summary:\n\n```json\n{\n \"describe\": \"v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab\",\n \"head\": \"2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1\",\n \"agentos_vulnerable\": true,\n \"entrypoints\": [\n {\n \"entrypoint\": \"agentapp_alias\",\n \"statuses\": [200, 200, 200],\n \"side_effects\": [\"no-auth-marker\", \"wrong-bearer-marker\"]\n },\n {\n \"entrypoint\": \"direct_agentos\",\n \"statuses\": [200, 200, 200],\n \"side_effects\": [\"no-auth-marker\", \"wrong-bearer-marker\"]\n }\n ],\n \"deploy_api_control\": {\n \"control_passed\": true,\n \"statuses\": [401, 401, 200]\n }\n}\n```\n\nThe three AgentOS statuses are for:\n\n- unauthenticated `GET /api/agents`;\n- unauthenticated `POST /api/chat`;\n- wrong-bearer `POST /api/chat`.\n\nThe side-effect list proves both unauthenticated chat requests invoked the\nagent method.\n\nMinimal inline reproducer:\n\n```python\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom tempfile import TemporaryDirectory\n\nfrom fastapi.testclient import TestClient\nfrom praisonai import AgentApp\nfrom praisonaiagents import AgentOSConfig\n\nclass StubAgent:\n name = \"pov_agentos_agent\"\n role = \"tester\"\n instructions = \"private instruction marker\"\n\n def __init__(self, out):\n self.out = out\n\n def chat(self, message):\n self.out.write_text(self.out.read_text() + message + \"\\n\")\n return \"PRAI_CAND_007_AGENTOS_EXECUTED:\" + message\n\nwith TemporaryDirectory() as tmp:\n side_effect = Path(tmp) / \"side_effects.txt\"\n side_effect.write_text(\"\")\n app = AgentApp(\n agents=[StubAgent(side_effect)],\n config=AgentOSConfig(host=\"0.0.0.0\", port=8000),\n )\n client = TestClient(app.get_app())\n\n assert client.get(\"/api/agents\").status_code == 200\n assert client.post(\"/api/chat\", json={\"message\": \"no-auth\"}).status_code == 200\n assert client.post(\n \"/api/chat\",\n headers={\"Authorization\": \"Bearer definitely-wrong\"},\n json={\"message\": \"wrong-bearer\"},\n ).status_code == 200\n assert side_effect.read_text().splitlines() == [\"no-auth\", \"wrong-bearer\"]\n```\n\n## Version Sweep\n\n| Target | Result |\n| --- | --- |\n| `v4.5.126` | vulnerable |\n| `v4.5.128` | vulnerable |\n| `v4.6.9` | vulnerable |\n| `v4.6.10` | vulnerable |\n| `v4.6.56` | vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns `401/401/200` |\n| `v4.6.57` | vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns `401/401/200` |\n| current `2f9677abb` | vulnerable; generated deploy API control returns `401/401/200` |\n\nEvidence files are retained locally under the bundle\u0027s `evidence/` directory\nand can be provided if useful.\n\n## Duplicate / Incomplete-Fix Notes\n\nThis report is related to `GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x` / `CVE-2026-40151`. The\npublished advisory describes AgentOS instruction disclosure and lists\n`4.5.128` as patched. It also mentions unauthenticated `/api/chat` as a chained\ninstruction-extraction path.\n\nThe current report should be treated as an incomplete fix / affected-range\ncorrection with a broader demonstrated impact:\n\n- the published patched version `v4.5.128` still reproduces;\n- latest release `v4.6.57` still reproduces;\n- current main still reproduces;\n- the PoV proves unauthorized agent invocation and side effects, not only\n instruction disclosure.\n\nThis is distinct from private `PRAI-CAND-003` / `GHSA-x8cv-xmq7-p8xp`, which\ncovers `praisonaiagents.AgentTeam.launch()` routes. This report covers\n`praisonai.app.AgentOS` and `AgentApp` alias routes.\n\n## Impact\n\nIf an operator exposes an AgentOS app on a reachable interface, any client that\ncan reach it can:\n\n- enumerate deployed agents through `GET /api/agents`;\n- read agent names, roles, and instruction snippets;\n- invoke the default agent or a named agent through `POST /api/chat`;\n- trigger downstream tools, private context reads, memory accesses, API\n integrations, browser actions, or other side effects attached to the agent;\n- consume model/API budget through repeated invocation.\n\nThe exact downstream impact depends on the deployed agents. The framework-level\nboundary failure is that a production deployment surface exposes agent control\nwithout authentication and defaults to binding on all interfaces.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nUse the same security model already applied to generated API deployments:\n\n- add authentication fields to `AgentOSConfig` / `AgentAppConfig`;\n- default auth to enabled;\n- default bind host to `127.0.0.1`;\n- reject no-auth and wrong-bearer requests for `GET /api/agents` and\n `POST /api/chat`;\n- fail closed for non-loopback binds unless auth is configured or an explicit\n unsafe development opt-out is set;\n- avoid returning instruction text from unauthenticated metadata endpoints;\n- add regression tests for no auth, wrong bearer, correct bearer, and external\n bind without auth.\n\nMaintainers can either update `GHSA-pm96-6xpr-978x` with the corrected affected\nrange and broader impact or publish a separate incomplete-fix advisory.\n\n## Suggested Severity\n\nSuggested severity: Critical.\n\nThe Critical score matches the unauthenticated agent-control model: network\nattacker, low complexity, no privileges, no user interaction, and high\ndeployment-dependent impact when agents are connected to tools, private data,\nor cost-bearing services. If maintainers score only a minimal no-tool demo\nagent, the impact may be lower, but the current default framework behavior is\nstill unauthenticated agent invocation.",
"id": "GHSA-892r-p3jq-jp24",
"modified": "2026-07-20T21:24:12Z",
"published": "2026-06-18T13:57:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-892r-p3jq-jp24"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "PraisonAI: AgentOS remains unauthenticated after incomplete fix version and allows remote agent invocation"
}
GHSA-892W-6M7R-PRVQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-30 18:33 – Updated: 2026-09-30 18:33In JetBrains YouTrack before 2026.2.19197 missing authorisation on several endpoints allowed authenticated users to access information from other projects
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-100271"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-30T16:16:58Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "In JetBrains YouTrack before 2026.2.19197 missing authorisation on several endpoints allowed authenticated users to access information from other projects",
"id": "GHSA-892w-6m7r-prvq",
"modified": "2026-09-30T18:33:31Z",
"published": "2026-09-30T18:33:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-100271"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jetbrains.com/privacy-security/issues-fixed"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-892X-54HQ-8C85
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-20 09:31 – Updated: 2026-07-20 18:32The PayPlus Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 8.2.2 does not perform authorization or order-ownership validation in one of its AJAX actions available to unauthenticated users, allowing them to disclose the secret order key of arbitrary WooCommerce orders and, under some configurations, to modify order statuses.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-12973"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-20T07:16:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The PayPlus Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 8.2.2 does not perform authorization or order-ownership validation in one of its AJAX actions available to unauthenticated users, allowing them to disclose the secret order key of arbitrary WooCommerce orders and, under some configurations, to modify order statuses.",
"id": "GHSA-892x-54hq-8c85",
"modified": "2026-07-20T18:32:31Z",
"published": "2026-07-20T09:31:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-12973"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/385bee73-f9e5-425e-aa4c-3ff9274f8e00"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
- Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Mitigation
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Mitigation MIT-4.4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Mitigation
- For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
- One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
Mitigation
Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
CAPEC-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws
An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.