PraisonAI dynamic-context artifact tools read arbitrary host files outside artifact storage
PraisonAI's Dynamic Context Discovery feature exposes artifact helper tools
through ctx.get_tools():
ctx = setup_dynamic_context()
agent = Agent(
instructions="You are a data analyst.",
tools=ctx.get_tools(),
hooks=[ctx.get_middleware()],
)
The official documentation describes these helpers as a way for the agent to explore large tool-output artifacts that were queued by the middleware:
artifact_tail and artifact_grep to explore that data.The implemented artifact tools do not enforce that the supplied
artifact_path is an artifact created by the configured store or that it lives
under the configured artifact base directory. Instead, artifact_head,
artifact_tail, artifact_grep, and artifact_chunk wrap the caller-supplied
path directly into an ArtifactRef and then read it from the host filesystem.
As a result, any prompt/user/tool-caller that can influence those tool
arguments can read files readable by the PraisonAI process, such as project
.env files, cloud credentials, SSH keys, source files, or other local data.
MervinPraison/PraisonAIpippraisonaisrc/praisonai/praisonai/context/queue.pysrc/praisonai/praisonai/context/artifact_store.py4.6.58origin/main validated:
1ad58ca02975ff1398efeda694ea2ab78f20cf3eorigin/main tag validated: v4.6.58Suggested affected range:
pip:praisonai >= 3.8.1, <= 4.6.58
Representative local sweep:
3.8.1: vulnerable4.0.0: vulnerable4.5.113: vulnerable4.6.33: vulnerable4.6.34: vulnerable4.6.40: vulnerable4.6.50: vulnerable4.6.58: vulnerablecreate_artifact_tools() creates an artifact store bound to base_dir, but the
read tools do not use base_dir for containment.
For example, artifact_head() accepts artifact_path and immediately creates
an ArtifactRef with that path:
def artifact_head(artifact_path: str, lines: int = 50) -> str:
ref = ArtifactRef(path=artifact_path, summary="", size_bytes=0)
try:
return artifact_store.head(ref, lines=lines)
except FileNotFoundError:
return f"Error: Artifact not found: {artifact_path}"
artifact_tail(), artifact_grep(), and artifact_chunk() have the same
pattern. They trust the caller-supplied path rather than resolving it through
an artifact identifier, store lookup, manifest, or base-directory containment
check.
The store methods then read that path directly:
def head(self, ref: ArtifactRef, lines: int = 50) -> str:
file_path = Path(ref.path)
if not file_path.exists():
raise FileNotFoundError(f"Artifact not found: {ref.path}")
result_lines = []
with open(file_path, "r", encoding="utf-8", errors="replace") as f:
...
There is no check equivalent to:
resolved = Path(ref.path).resolve()
base = self.base_dir.resolve()
resolved.relative_to(base)
There is also no check that the file has a valid .meta sidecar or appears in
artifact_list().
Run against the latest PyPI package:
uv run --with 'praisonai==4.6.58' \
python poc/pov_prai_cand_026_artifact_tools_arbitrary_file_read.py --json
The PoV:
outside-secret.txt file outside that base directory.FileSystemArtifactStore.store().artifact_head() on the legitimate artifact as a positive control.artifact_head(), artifact_grep(), and artifact_chunk() on the
outside file path.artifact_list() does not list the outside file.Observed output summary from evidence/pov-pypi-4.6.58.json:
{
"package": "praisonai",
"package_version": "4.6.58",
"controls": {
"outside_file_not_listed": true,
"outside_file_outside_base_dir": true,
"valid_artifact_read_works": true
},
"outside_head": "PRAI-CAND-026-OUTSIDE-ARTIFACT-SECRET",
"outside_grep": "Found 1 matches:\\n\\n--- Line 1 ---\\n> PRAI-CAND-026-OUTSIDE-ARTIFACT-SECRET\\n second line",
"outside_chunk": "PRAI-CAND-026-OUTSIDE-ARTIFACT-SECRET",
"outside_file_listed_by_artifact_list": false,
"vulnerable": true
}
The PoV was rerun successfully after a fresh origin/main fetch; see
evidence/pov-pypi-4.6.58-rerun.json.
The PoV is local-only. It does not start a server, contact a third-party target, or use real credentials.
This report does not claim that every file-reading tool is automatically a vulnerability. The issue is narrower: tools documented and named as artifact helpers accept arbitrary host file paths.
The controls show the intended boundary:
base_dir is readable;artifact_list();base_dir; andPraisonAI's own context-security documentation recommends relative paths and reviewing ignore rules to avoid sensitive-file exposure. Those controls are bypassed when artifact tools can be pointed directly at any readable host path.
If a PraisonAI application exposes an agent with ctx.get_tools() to
untrusted or lower-trust prompts, the lower-trust caller can request artifact
tools against arbitrary local paths. This can disclose sensitive host files
readable by the PraisonAI process, including:
.env files;The impact is confidentiality-only in the tested surface. Integrity and availability are not claimed for this report.
I checked visible PraisonAI advisories and local prior PraisonAI submissions. This is distinct from nearby file-read/file-write issues:
GHSA-9cr9-25q5-8prj / CVE-2026-47394 covers MCP CLI
workflow.show, workflow.validate, and deploy.validate path handling.
This report covers Dynamic Context Discovery artifact tools in
context/queue.py.GHSA-hvhp-v2gc-268q / CVE-2026-47397 covers write_file arbitrary file
write when workspace=None. This report is a read-only disclosure issue in
artifact helper tools.artifact_head,
artifact_tail, artifact_grep, artifact_chunk, or
FileSystemArtifactStore path containment.Suggested severity: High.
Suggested CVSS v3.1:
Rationale:
AV: applies when an application exposes a PraisonAI agent over a network
chat/API surface, which is a documented PraisonAI deployment pattern.AC: no race, special environment, or complex path manipulation is
required; an absolute readable path is sufficient.PR: an unauthenticated or public-facing agent endpoint can be exploited
without an account. Deployments that require authenticated chat/API access
may score this as PR:L.UI: the attacker directly supplies the prompt/tool argument to the
exposed agent surface.C: arbitrary readable host files can contain secrets or private data.I/A: this report demonstrates read-only disclosure.Do not let artifact tools open arbitrary paths. Prefer stable artifact IDs over raw filesystem paths in tool arguments.
Recommended fixes:
artifact_id plus optional run_id and
agent_id, then resolve those through the artifact store's metadata/index.Path(path).resolve() and reject it unless it is under
artifact_store.base_dir.resolve().FileSystemArtifactStore.store() should not be readable through
artifact tools.load(), head(), tail(), grep(),
chunk(), and delete().Minimal containment helper:
def _resolve_artifact_path(self, path: str) -> Path:
resolved = Path(path).expanduser().resolve()
base = self.base_dir.resolve()
try:
resolved.relative_to(base)
except ValueError as exc:
raise PermissionError("Artifact path is outside artifact storage") from exc
return resolved
This helper should be paired with metadata-sidecar validation so arbitrary non-artifact files placed under the base directory are not automatically treated as valid artifacts.
왜 이 VPI인가 (설명가능 · 실험적)
VPI 산정 기준
| 영향도 | 75.00 |
| 악용 신호(추가 악용신호 없음) | ×1.00 |
| VPI | 75.00 |
VPI 공식 vpi-v1 기준