Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐍
🐍 PyPI
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65

HIGH

GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.6) CWE-639 vulnerability in praisonai-platform. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65 is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

praisonai-platform: Label endpoints' unchecked label_id/issue_id enable cross-workspace label IDOR (edit, delete, link)

Also known asCVE-2026-47414PYSEC-2026-2929
Published
May 29, 2026
Updated
Jul 13, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Aug 20, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

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-5jx9-w35f-vp65.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs12th percentile — riskier than 12% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.24%0.48%0.71%0.2%0.2%Aug 26Aug 26

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-5jx9-w35f-vp65 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 0 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

1 pkg affected
🐍praisonai-platform

Real-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. Five label endpoints — PATCH /workspaces/{workspace_id}/labels/{label_id}, DELETE .../labels/{label_id}, POST .../issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}, DELETE .../issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}, GET .../issues/{issue_id}/labels — gate access on require_workspace_member(workspace_id) only and pass URL-supplied label_id and issue_id straight through to LabelService without verifying either belongs to the workspace. File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py, lines 35-100; route handlers at src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/labels.py, lines 42-106. Root cause: identical pattern to the agent / issue / project / comment IDORs in this codebase: the route's workspace_id is used as a membership predicate but never threaded through to the service layer. LabelService.get(label_id) runs session.get(IssueLabel, label_id) with no workspace filter; update/delete inherit the gap; add_to_issue(issue_id, label_id) and remove_from_issue(issue_id, label_id) write/delete association rows without verifying either ID belongs to the membership-checked workspace; list_for_issue(issue_id) reads them.

Affected Code

File 1: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py, lines 35-100.

class LabelService:
    ...

    async def get(self, label_id: str) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
        return await self._session.get(IssueLabel, label_id)         # <-- BUG: no workspace_id predicate

    async def update(
        self,
        label_id: str,
        ...
    ) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
        label = await self.get(label_id)                             # <-- inherits the gap
        ...

    async def delete(self, label_id: str) -> bool:
        label = await self.get(label_id)                             # <-- inherits the gap
        ...

    async def add_to_issue(self, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
        # writes a row in issue_label association table; no workspace check on either id

    async def remove_from_issue(self, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
        # deletes from association table; no workspace check on either id

    async def list_for_issue(self, issue_id: str) -> list[IssueLabel]:
        # reads from association table; no workspace check on issue_id

File 2: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/labels.py, lines 42-106.

@router.patch("/labels/{label_id}", response_model=LabelResponse)
async def update_label(workspace_id: str, label_id: str, body: LabelUpdate, ...):
    svc = LabelService(session)
    label = await svc.update(label_id, body.name, body.color)        # <-- writes any label in the DB
    ...

@router.delete("/labels/{label_id}", ...)
async def delete_label(workspace_id: str, label_id: str, ...):
    deleted = await svc.delete(label_id)                             # <-- deletes any label in the DB
    ...

@router.post("/issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}", ...)
async def add_label_to_issue(workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, label_id: str, ...):
    await svc.add_to_issue(issue_id, label_id)                       # <-- attaches any label to any issue cross-workspace

@router.delete("/issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}", ...)
async def remove_label_from_issue(workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, label_id: str, ...):
    await svc.remove_from_issue(issue_id, label_id)                  # <-- detaches any label from any issue cross-workspace

@router.get("/issues/{issue_id}/labels", ...)
async def list_issue_labels(workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, ...):
    labels = await svc.list_for_issue(issue_id)                      # <-- reads label assignments for any issue

Why it's wrong: the workspace_id URL segment is treated as a UI hint; the actual label_id and issue_id lookups query the database without a workspace constraint. The MemberService in this same codebase uses a composite key correctly; the label service does not. The add_to_issue and remove_from_issue paths are particularly nasty because they touch two unverified IDs at once: an attacker can attach a foreign workspace's label to a foreign workspace's issue (or detach the legitimate labels), corrupting both sides of an association the attacker has no business touching.

Exploit Chain

  1. Attacker registers a workspace W_attacker (member) and harvests a foreign-workspace label_id L_T and a foreign-workspace issue_id I_T. Both leak via list_labels responses (which include label IDs — but only for W_attacker; for the target the IDs come from issue records that include label associations, activity feeds, exported dumps, error messages). State: attacker holds L_T and I_T.
  2. Attacker authenticates and sends PATCH /workspaces/W_attacker/labels/L_T with {"name": "<deleted>", "color": "#000000"}. require_workspace_member(W_attacker, attacker) passes. LabelService.update(L_T, ...) loads the foreign label and renames it. State: every issue across the foreign workspace that bears this label now displays the attacker-chosen name and colour.
  3. Attacker sends DELETE /workspaces/W_attacker/labels/L_T. LabelService.delete(L_T) deletes the foreign label, dropping every issue-label association row that referenced it (cascade or orphan, depending on schema). State: foreign workspace's labels are gone or corrupted.
  4. Attacker sends POST /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/labels/L_T2 to attach foreign label L_T2 to foreign issue I_T. LabelService.add_to_issue(I_T, L_T2) writes the association row regardless of either ID's workspace. State: the foreign issue now carries an arbitrary attacker-chosen label, which surfaces in every filter/search/board view in the foreign workspace's UI.
  5. Attacker sends DELETE /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/labels/L_legit to strip the legitimate label off the foreign issue. State: triagers can no longer find the issue via label filters.
  6. Attacker sends GET /workspaces/W_attacker/issues/I_T/labels to read the current label set on any foreign issue. State: the attacker fingerprints the foreign workspace's triage taxonomy.
  7. Final state: with one workspace-member token plus harvested foreign IDs, the attacker rewrites and deletes other workspaces' labels, attaches/detaches arbitrary labels on other workspaces' issues, and reads triage state across the deployment.

Security Impact

Severity: sec-moderate. CVSS 6.3: network attack, low complexity, low privileges, no user interaction, scope unchanged. The integrity damage is high (rename/delete of foreign labels is permanent and silent; cross-workspace label-attachment corrupts UI filters), confidentiality is low (label names are not the most sensitive field but do leak triage taxonomy), availability low (foreign workspaces may lose triage visibility into their own issues until the labels are restored). Attacker capability: rename and delete any label in the multi-tenant deployment; attach any label to any issue; detach any label from any issue; list label assignments for any issue. Combined with the companion IssueService IDOR (separate advisory), the attacker can also modify the underlying issue, making the cross-workspace tampering very difficult to detect. Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; the attacker has any membership token; target IDs are known or guessable. Differential: source-inspection-verified end-to-end. The asymmetry between LabelService.list_for_workspace(workspace_id) (correctly workspace-scoped) and LabelService.get(label_id) / add_to_issue(issue_id, label_id) (no workspace check) confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, label and issue IDs that do not belong to the membership-checked workspace return 404, and the attacker cannot touch them.

Suggested Fix

Make every single-row label lookup take the workspace predicate; verify both issue_id and label_id belong to workspace_id for the association routes.

--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py
@@ -33,7 +33,12 @@ class LabelService:
         return label

-    async def get(self, label_id: str) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
-        return await self._session.get(IssueLabel, label_id)
+    async def get(self, workspace_id: str, label_id: str) -> Optional[IssueLabel]:
+        stmt = select(IssueLabel).where(
+            IssueLabel.id == label_id,
+            IssueLabel.workspace_id == workspace_id,
+        )
+        return (await self._session.execute(stmt)).scalar_one_or_none()

-    async def add_to_issue(self, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
+    async def add_to_issue(self, workspace_id: str, issue_id: str, label_id: str) -> None:
+        # Verify both ids belong to workspace_id before writing the association row.

Then update the route handlers in routes/labels.py to thread workspace_id through every call. The same single-key-lookup pattern is filed separately for AgentService, IssueService, ProjectService, and CommentService — each is its own exploitable IDOR.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐍PyPIpraisonai-platformall versions0.1.4

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    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.

  2. 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-5jx9-w35f-vp65 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. 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.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65 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-5jx9-w35f-vp65. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary **Type:** Insecure Direct Object Reference. Five label endpoints — `PATCH /workspaces/{workspace_id}/labels/{label_id}`, `DELETE .../labels/{label_id}`, `POST .../issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}`, `DELETE .../issues/{issue_id}/labels/{label_id}`, `GET .../issues/{issue_id}/labels` — gate access on `require_workspace_member(workspace_id)` only and pass URL-supplied `label_id` and `issue_id` straight through to `LabelService` without verifying either belongs to the workspace. **File:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/label_service.py`, lines 35-100; route hand
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65 across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

GHSA-5jx9-w35f-vp65: praisonai-platform… | O3 Security