Search criteria
Related vulnerabilities
GHSA-CP4F-5M9R-5JC2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-01 14:19 – Updated: 2026-06-01 14:19Summary
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.
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.
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.
Affected Code
File 1: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py, lines 143-171.
@router.post("/{issue_id}/comments", response_model=CommentResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)
async def add_comment(
workspace_id: str,
issue_id: str,
body: CommentCreate,
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member), # only checks attacker is in workspace_id
session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
svc = CommentService(session)
comment = await svc.create(
issue_id=issue_id, # <-- BUG: no validation that issue_id is in workspace_id
author_id=user.id,
content=body.content,
author_type="member" if user.is_user else "agent",
parent_id=body.parent_id,
)
return CommentResponse.model_validate(comment)
@router.get("/{issue_id}/comments", response_model=List[CommentResponse])
async def list_comments(
workspace_id: str,
issue_id: str,
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
svc = CommentService(session)
comments = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id) # <-- BUG: returns comments on any issue
return [CommentResponse.model_validate(c) for c in comments]
File 2: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/comment_service.py, lines 19-53.
class CommentService:
...
async def create(
self,
issue_id: str,
author_id: str,
content: str,
author_type: str = "member",
comment_type: str = "comment",
parent_id: Optional[str] = None,
) -> Comment:
comment = Comment(
issue_id=issue_id, # <-- accepts any issue_id; no workspace verify
author_type=author_type,
author_id=author_id,
...
)
self._session.add(comment)
await self._session.flush()
return comment
async def list_for_issue(self, issue_id: str) -> list[Comment]:
stmt = (
select(Comment)
.where(Comment.issue_id == issue_id) # <-- no JOIN against issues for workspace constraint
.order_by(Comment.created_at)
)
result = await self._session.execute(stmt)
return list(result.scalars().all())
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.
Exploit Chain
- Attacker registers a workspace
W_attacker(member) and harvests a target issue UUIDI_Tfrom any side channel: agent prompts that mention issues, the activity feed (act_svc.logrecordsissue_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 holdsI_T. - Attacker authenticates and sends
GET /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/comments.require_workspace_member(W_attacker, attacker)passes (attacker is a member ofW_attacker). State: control flow enterslist_commentswithworkspace_id=W_attacker, issue_id=I_T. CommentService.list_for_issue(I_T)runsSELECT * 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.- Attacker repeats with
POST /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/commentsand 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'sauthor_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. - 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 (theact_svc.logcall inadd_commentis omitted).
Security Impact
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.
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).
Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; the attacker has any membership token; the target issue's UUID is known or guessable.
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.
Suggested Fix
Resolve 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.
--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py
@@ -141,6 +141,11 @@ async def delete_issue(...):
# ── Comments ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+async def _require_issue_in_workspace(session, workspace_id: str, issue_id: str):
+ issue = await IssueService(session).get(workspace_id, issue_id) # workspace-scoped get (see companion advisory)
+ if issue is None:
+ raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Issue not found")
+
@router.post("/{issue_id}/comments", response_model=CommentResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)
async def add_comment(
workspace_id: str,
@@ -149,6 +154,7 @@ async def add_comment(
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
+ await _require_issue_in_workspace(session, workspace_id, issue_id)
svc = CommentService(session)
comment = await svc.create(
issue_id=issue_id,
@@ -167,5 +173,6 @@ async def list_comments(
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
+ await _require_issue_in_workspace(session, workspace_id, issue_id)
svc = CommentService(session)
comments = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id)
Companion advisories file the same workspace-scoping gap for AgentService, IssueService, ProjectService, and LabelService. Each is a separate exploitable IDOR.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "praisonai-platform"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.1.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-47417"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-639"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-01T14:19:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"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, # \u003c-- 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) # \u003c-- 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 ) -\u003e Comment:\n comment = Comment(\n issue_id=issue_id, # \u003c-- 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) -\u003e list[Comment]:\n stmt = (\n select(Comment)\n .where(Comment.issue_id == issue_id) # \u003c-- 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\u0027s 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\u0027s 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 = \u0027I_T\u0027` with no workspace constraint. Every comment on the foreign issue is returned: `content` (often the most sensitive part of an issue tracker \u2014 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\": \"\u003cmalicious\u003e\"}`. `CommentService.create(issue_id=I_T, author_id=attacker, ...)` writes a row with the foreign issue\u0027s id and the attacker\u0027s `author_id`. State: a new comment authored by the attacker appears in the foreign workspace\u0027s issue thread, indistinguishable to the foreign workspace\u0027s 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\u0027s 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\u0027s `author_id`, but the foreign workspace has no member with that id and the foreign workspace\u0027s 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\u0027s 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\u0027s identity into any foreign issue, allowing comment-spam, phishing-link injection into another tenant\u0027s UI, or social-engineering attribution attacks (the foreign workspace\u0027s 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\u0027s 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 # \u2500\u2500 Comments \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\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.",
"id": "GHSA-cp4f-5m9r-5jc2",
"modified": "2026-06-01T14:19:33Z",
"published": "2026-06-01T14:19:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-cp4f-5m9r-5jc2"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "praisonai-platform: Comment endpoints accept any issue_id without workspace ownership check, cross-workspace comment read and post IDOR"
}