CVE-2026-44335 (GCVE-0-2026-44335)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-05-08 13:26 – Updated: 2026-05-08 14:46
VLAI?
Title
SSRF bypass in PraisonAI
Summary
PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.6.32, the URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. This issue has been patched in version 1.6.32.
Severity ?
CWE
- CWE-918 - Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Assigner
References
| URL | Tags | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MervinPraison | PraisonAI |
Affected:
< 1.6.32
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-44335",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-05-08T14:46:06.544307Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-05-08T14:46:13.605Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "PraisonAI",
"vendor": "MervinPraison",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 1.6.32"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.6.32, the URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. This issue has been patched in version 1.6.32."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 7.7,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-918",
"description": "CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-05-08T13:26:48.564Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "SSRF bypass in PraisonAI"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-44335",
"datePublished": "2026-05-08T13:26:48.564Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-05T19:52:59.147Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-05-08T14:46:13.605Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
GHSA-Q9PW-VMHH-384G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 22:08 – Updated: 2026-05-12 13:33
VLAI?
Summary
PraisonAI has an SSRF bypass
Details
Summary
The URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks.
Details
The current PraisonAI project uses _validate_url to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL extracted by urlparse to prevent SSRF attacks.
However, there are indeed differences in parsing between urlparse and the library that actually sends the request. Currently, almost all application scenarios in this project involve first using _validate_url for URL validation, and then using _get_session().get to send the request.
In reality, its underlying mechanism is requests.get.
The core issue: urlparse() and requests disagree on which host a URL like http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1 points to:
urlparse()treats\as a regular character and@as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as1.1.1.1(public)requeststreats\as a path character, connecting to127.0.0.1(internal)
Below is a test code I wrote following the code.
import sys
from pathlib import Path
from pprint import pprint
sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(r"D:/BaiduNetdiskDownload/PraisonAI-main/PraisonAI-main/src/praisonai-agents")))
from praisonaiagents.tools import spider_tools
# url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1"
url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666"
result = spider_tools.scrape_page(url)
if isinstance(result, dict) and "error" in result:
print("scrape failed:", result["error"])
else:
pprint(result)
When an attacker uses http://127.0.0.1:6666/, the existing detection logic can detect that this is an internal network address and block it.
However, when an attacker uses http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1, the detection logic resolves the host to 1.1.1.1, which is a public IP address, thus passing the verification. But in the actual request process, this URL is forwarded by requests.get to http://127.0.0.1:6666, bypassing the detection and achieving an SSRF attack.
PoC
http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1
Impact
SSRF
Severity ?
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.6.31"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "praisonaiagents"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.6.32"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44335"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-06T22:08:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-08T14:16:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks.\n\n### Details\nThe current PraisonAI project uses _validate_url to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL extracted by urlparse to prevent SSRF attacks.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1290\" height=\"1145\" alt=\"QQ20260424-151256-24-1\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d5f16b74-5ad2-444f-8600-b05f78a4b769\" /\u003e\n\nHowever, there are indeed differences in parsing between urlparse and the library that actually sends the request. Currently, almost all application scenarios in this project involve first using _validate_url for URL validation, and then using _get_session().get to send the request.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1143\" height=\"740\" alt=\"QQ20260424-151437-24-2\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b1bf6ec2-d32a-4dac-b814-da819e8d3c83\" /\u003e\n\nIn reality, its underlying mechanism is requests.get.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1042\" height=\"576\" alt=\"QQ20260424-151645-24-3\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e17352c3-4205-44d6-ab6e-75566480215b\" /\u003e\n\nThe core issue:\u00a0`urlparse()`\u00a0and\u00a0`requests`\u00a0disagree on which host a URL like\u00a0`http://127.0.0.1:6666\\@1.1.1.1`\u00a0points to:\n\n- `urlparse()`\u00a0treats\u00a0`\\`\u00a0as a regular character and\u00a0`@`\u00a0as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as\u00a0`1.1.1.1`\u00a0(public)\n- `requests`\u00a0treats\u00a0`\\`\u00a0as a path character, connecting to\u00a0`127.0.0.1`\u00a0(internal)\n\nBelow is a test code I wrote following the code.\n\n```\nimport sys\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom pprint import pprint\n\nsys.path.insert(0, str(Path(r\"D:/BaiduNetdiskDownload/PraisonAI-main/PraisonAI-main/src/praisonai-agents\")))\n\nfrom praisonaiagents.tools import spider_tools\n\n# url = \"http://127.0.0.1:6666\\@1.1.1.1\"\nurl = \"http://127.0.0.1:6666\"\n\nresult = spider_tools.scrape_page(url)\n\nif isinstance(result, dict) and \"error\" in result:\n print(\"scrape failed:\", result[\"error\"])\nelse:\n pprint(result)\n```\nWhen an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666/`, the existing detection logic can detect that this is an internal network address and block it.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1068\" height=\"128\" alt=\"QQ20260424-152007-24-4\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/294bff10-2af6-4960-bf69-dbf3340b1e9b\" /\u003e\n\nHowever, when an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666\\@1.1.1.1`, the detection logic resolves the host to `1.1.1.1`, which is a public IP address, thus passing the verification. But in the actual request process, this URL is forwarded by requests.get to `http://127.0.0.1:6666`, bypassing the detection and achieving an SSRF attack.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"2089\" height=\"324\" alt=\"QQ20260424-152123-24-5\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4421ce42-e47b-48de-a97a-56ce56a2bbc9\" /\u003e\n\n### PoC\n```\nhttp://127.0.0.1:6666\\@1.1.1.1\n```\n\n### Impact\nSSRF",
"id": "GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g",
"modified": "2026-05-12T13:33:12Z",
"published": "2026-05-06T22:08:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44335"
},
{
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "PraisonAI has an SSRF bypass"
}
FKIE_CVE-2026-44335
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-05-08 14:16 - Updated: 2026-06-17 10:50
Severity ?
Summary
PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.6.32, the URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. This issue has been patched in version 1.6.32.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| praison | praisonaiagents | * |
{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"product": "PraisonAI",
"vendor": "MervinPraison",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 1.6.32"
}
]
}
],
"source": "security-advisories@github.com"
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:praison:praisonaiagents:*:*:*:*:*:python:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "AB49F79A-F9E9-4E57-8FC7-CAA38FBC171C",
"versionEndExcluding": "1.6.32",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.6.32, the URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. This issue has been patched in version 1.6.32."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-44335",
"lastModified": "2026-06-17T10:50:31.253",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.8,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 5.9,
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
],
"cvssMetricV40": [
{
"cvssData": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"baseScore": 7.7,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"exploitMaturity": "PROOF_OF_CONCEPT",
"integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-44335",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"automatable": "yes"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-05-08T14:46:06.544307Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-05-08T14:16:46.290",
"references": [
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"tags": [
"Exploit",
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g"
},
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"tags": [
"Exploit",
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-918"
}
],
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…