GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj
MEDIUMGHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.5) CWE-639 vulnerability in praisonai-platform. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
praisonai-platform: list_issue_activity returns activity log for any issue regardless of workspace ownership
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 365,017 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
praisonai-platformReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
Type: Insecure Direct Object Reference. The GET /workspaces/{workspace_id}/issues/{issue_id}/activity endpoint is gated by require_workspace_member(workspace_id) and dispatches to ActivityService.list_for_issue(issue_id), which executes SELECT * FROM activity WHERE issue_id = :issue_id with no workspace constraint. A user who is a member of any workspace can read the full activity log of any issue across the entire multi-tenant deployment.
File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py, lines 32-43; services/activity_service.py's list_for_issue method.
Root cause: the route extracts workspace_id from the URL path, uses it solely for the membership gate, then passes the URL-supplied issue_id directly to ActivityService.list_for_issue(issue_id) without verifying which workspace the issue belongs to. The companion list_workspace_activity endpoint at line 19-29 is implemented correctly (it passes workspace_id to svc.list_for_workspace(workspace_id)) — the asymmetry is the smoking gun.
Affected Code
File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py, lines 19-43.
@router.get("/activity", response_model=List[ActivityLogResponse])
async def list_workspace_activity(
workspace_id: str,
limit: int = Query(50, ge=1, le=200),
offset: int = Query(0, ge=0),
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
svc = ActivityService(session)
logs = await svc.list_for_workspace(workspace_id, limit=limit, offset=offset) # correct: passes workspace_id
return [ActivityLogResponse.model_validate(log) for log in logs]
@router.get("/issues/{issue_id}/activity", response_model=List[ActivityLogResponse])
async def list_issue_activity(
workspace_id: str,
issue_id: str,
limit: int = Query(50, ge=1, le=200),
offset: int = Query(0, ge=0),
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
svc = ActivityService(session)
logs = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id, limit=limit, offset=offset) # <-- BUG: no workspace_id
return [ActivityLogResponse.model_validate(log) for log in logs]
Why it's wrong: activity logs are typically the most sensitive operational record — they include actor identity, action type, entity references, and a free-form details JSON blob that may contain pre-/post-change values for any tracked field. Reading the foreign workspace's activity log gives the attacker a high-fidelity view into who did what when, which is gold for further reconnaissance (cross-workspace member enumeration, foreign issue title disclosure, knowing which projects exist). The same author got list_workspace_activity right by passing workspace_id — the issue-scoped variant is the gap.
Exploit Chain
- Attacker is a member of workspace
W_attackerand harvests a target issue UUIDI_Tfrom any side channel. State: attacker holdsI_T. - Attacker sends
GET /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/activity?limit=200withAuthorization: Bearer <attacker_jwt>. State: control flow enterslist_issue_activity. require_workspace_member(W_attacker, attacker)passes.ActivityService.list_for_issue(I_T)runsSELECT * FROM activity WHERE issue_id = 'I_T' ORDER BY created_at DESC LIMIT 200. State: response body is the full activity log for the foreign issue.- The activity entries reveal: every actor (member or agent) who touched the issue, every action (created, updated, commented, status_changed, assignee_changed, project_changed, label_added, dependency_added), and the
detailsJSON blob containing the before/after values of every change. State: the attacker fingerprints the foreign workspace's triage workflow, identifies who works on what, and sees the issue's complete history including any embedded secrets that ever passed through the description or comments. - Final state: with one workspace-member token plus one GET, the attacker reads the full activity timeline of any issue in the multi-tenant deployment given the issue UUIDs.
Security Impact
Severity: sec-moderate. CVSS 6.5: network attack, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, scope unchanged, high confidentiality (full activity log including before/after details), no integrity claim (read-only), no availability claim.
Attacker capability: read the activity log of any issue in the deployment given its UUID. Combined with the companion issue-IDOR (which already gives full issue content), this is recon for the foreign workspace's operational tempo, member identity, and triage workflow.
Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; attacker has any workspace-membership token; foreign issue UUIDs are reachable.
Differential: source-inspection-verified. The asymmetry between list_workspace_activity (correctly workspace-scoped) and list_issue_activity (no workspace check) confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, the route first resolves the issue via IssueService.get(workspace_id, issue_id), returns 404 for foreign issues, and only then proceeds.
Suggested Fix
--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/activity.py
@@ -32,9 +32,12 @@
@router.get("/issues/{issue_id}/activity", response_model=List[ActivityLogResponse])
async def list_issue_activity(
workspace_id: str,
issue_id: str,
limit: int = Query(50, ge=1, le=200),
offset: int = Query(0, ge=0),
user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
+ issue_svc = IssueService(session)
+ if await issue_svc.get(workspace_id, issue_id) is None: # workspace-scoped get from issue-IDOR companion
+ raise HTTPException(status_code=404, detail="Issue not found")
svc = ActivityService(session)
logs = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id, limit=limit, offset=offset)
return [ActivityLogResponse.model_validate(log) for log in logs]
The same single-key issue lookup pattern is filed separately as the IssueService IDOR; once that is fixed, the helper used here is just IssueService.get(workspace_id, issue_id).
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | praisonai-platform | all versions | 0.1.4 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for praisonai-platform. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update praisonai-platform to 0.1.4 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.
Tailored to GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-27p4-pjqv-whgj across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.