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

GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh

CRITICAL

GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh is a critical-severity (CVSS 9.6) Improper Privilege Management vulnerability in praisonai-platform. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

praisonai-platform: Any workspace member can add arbitrary user as owner via POST /workspaces/{id}/members

Also known asCVE-2026-47413PYSEC-2026-480
Published
Jun 1, 2026
Updated
Jun 29, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Aug 16, 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.
  • A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs11th percentile — riskier than 11% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.24%0.47%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-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh 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 366,298 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: Privilege escalation / cross-tenant member injection. The POST /workspaces/{workspace_id}/members endpoint is gated only by require_workspace_member(workspace_id) (default min_role="member") and forwards the request body's user_id and role straight into MemberService.add(workspace_id, user_id, role), which has no caller-permission check. A user with the lowest workspace privilege can add any user (including a new attacker-controlled second account, or an existing account they want to grief) as owner of the workspace. File: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py, lines 92-101; services/member_service.py, lines 26-38. Root cause: MemberService.add validates only that role is in VALID_ROLES = {"owner", "admin", "member"} — the value, not the caller's right to assign it. The route's Depends(require_workspace_member) resolves to the default min_role="member". So a member-level token plus one POST gives the attacker an alternate identity with owner role inside the same workspace, bypassing every owner-only operation that would otherwise gate them.

Affected Code

File 1: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py, lines 92-101.

@router.post("/{workspace_id}/members", response_model=MemberResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)
async def add_member(
    workspace_id: str,
    body: MemberAdd,
    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),         # <-- BUG: defaults to min_role="member"
    session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
):
    member_svc = MemberService(session)
    member = await member_svc.add(workspace_id, body.user_id, body.role)  # <-- writes any (user, role)
    return MemberResponse.model_validate(member)

File 2: src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/services/member_service.py, lines 26-38.

async def add(
    self,
    workspace_id: str,
    user_id: str,
    role: str = "member",
) -> Member:
    """Add a user to a workspace."""
    if role not in VALID_ROLES:                                      # only validates the value
        raise ValueError(f"Invalid role: {role}. Must be one of {VALID_ROLES}")
    member = Member(workspace_id=workspace_id, user_id=user_id, role=role)
    self._session.add(member)                                        # <-- BUG: no caller-permission check
    await self._session.flush()
    return member

Why it's wrong: workspace member management is the textbook capability that must be gated on owner role. The role hierarchy is implemented (MemberService.has_role, member_service.py:80-96), the dependency-tunable min_role parameter exists (require_workspace_member(min_role), deps.py:58), but the POST .../members route uses neither. The VALID_ROLES enum check is purely cosmetic — it accepts "owner" from any caller because the route never asked whether the caller has the right to assign that role.

Exploit Chain

  1. Attacker registers two accounts (or recruits a member account on the target workspace W). Account A is an existing member of W; Account B is a fresh signup the attacker controls (any account on the platform — auth/register is open by default). State: attacker holds tokens for both A and B.
  2. Attacker authenticates as Account A and POSTs Authorization: Bearer <A_jwt> to POST /workspaces/W/members with body {"user_id": "<B_user_id>", "role": "owner"}. State: control flow enters add_member.
  3. require_workspace_member(W, A) passes (A is a member). MemberService.add(W, B, "owner") writes a new row Member(workspace_id=W, user_id=B, role="owner"). State: Account B is now a workspace-W owner.
  4. Attacker switches to Account B and acts as workspace owner — change settings, add/remove members, delete the workspace, or pivot to the companion advisories' primitives. State: attacker holds owner of any workspace they had member access to, via a fresh attacker-controlled identity that the original workspace's audit logs cannot easily attribute to A.
  5. Final state: with one member-level token plus one POST, the attacker plants an owner-role identity on any workspace they can reach. The same primitive lets the attacker invite a competitor or external-vendor account into the workspace as owner, exfiltrating the workspace's content under that competitor's name.

Security Impact

Severity: sec-critical. CVSS 9.1: network attack, low complexity, low privileges (member tier), no user interaction, scope changed (the new owner is a different security principal), high confidentiality and integrity, no availability claim. Attacker capability: with one workspace-member token plus one POST request, the attacker grants owner-tier access to any user_id on the platform. From there, full workspace control via the Account B token, plus indirect attribution: the original workspace's audit logs see "user A added user B as owner" but the audit trail cannot tell that B is attacker-controlled. Preconditions: praisonai-platform is deployed multi-tenant; the attacker has any membership token in the target workspace; the attacker can register or knows any other user_id on the platform. Differential: source-inspection-verified. The asymmetry between MemberService.has_role (clearly tiered) and add_member's default min_role="member" confirms the gap. With the suggested fix below, the gate refuses the member-tier token, the elevated POST returns 403, and the second-identity owner is never created.

Suggested Fix

--- a/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py
+++ b/src/praisonai-platform/praisonai_platform/api/routes/workspaces.py
@@ -90,11 +90,15 @@
+def _require_workspace_owner(workspace_id: str, user, session):
+    return require_workspace_member(workspace_id, user, session, min_role="owner")
+
 @router.post("/{workspace_id}/members", response_model=MemberResponse, status_code=status.HTTP_201_CREATED)
 async def add_member(
     workspace_id: str,
     body: MemberAdd,
-    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(require_workspace_member),
+    user: AuthIdentity = Depends(_require_workspace_owner),
     session: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db),
 ):
     member_svc = MemberService(session)
+    if body.role == "owner" and not await member_svc.has_role(workspace_id, user.id, "owner"):
+        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail="Only owners can add other owners")
     member = await member_svc.add(workspace_id, body.user_id, body.role)

The four other workspace mutation endpoints (update_workspace, delete_workspace, update_member_role, remove_member) exhibit the same default-min-role gap and are filed as their own advisories.

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-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh 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-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh 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-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh. 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:** Privilege escalation / cross-tenant member injection. The `POST /workspaces/{workspace_id}/members` endpoint is gated only by `require_workspace_member(workspace_id)` (default `min_role="member"`) and forwards the request body's `user_id` and `role` straight into `MemberService.add(workspace_id, user_id, role)`, which has no caller-permission check. A user with the lowest workspace privilege can add any user (including a new attacker-controlled second account, or an existing account they want to grief) as owner of the workspace. **File:** `src/praisonai-platform/praisonai
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh 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-8g2p-pqm3-fcfh: praisonai-platform… | O3 Security