Summary
PraisonAI's Dynamic Context Discovery artifact tools can read caller-supplied filesystem paths without confirming that they belong to the configured artifact store or base directory. If a prompt, user, or tool caller can influence the path argument, the PraisonAI process may disclose readable files such as credentials, source code, or environment configuration.
PraisonAI's Dynamic Context Discovery artifact tools can read caller-supplied filesystem paths without confirming that they belong to the configured artifact store or base directory. If a prompt, user, or tool caller can influence the path argument, the PraisonAI process may disclose readable files such as credentials, source code, or environment configuration.
Affected context
The issue occurs in PraisonAI deployments using Dynamic Context Discovery and its artifact helper tools, including artifact_head, artifact_tail, artifact_grep, and artifact_chunk. Risk is present when these tools accept path values that are not restricted to artifacts created by the configured store or files beneath the configured artifact base directory, and when the PraisonAI process can read sensitive host files.
The issue occurs in PraisonAI deployments using Dynamic Context Discovery and its artifact helper tools, including artifact_head, artifact_tail, artifact_grep, and artifact_chunk. Risk is present when these tools accept path values that are not restricted to artifacts created by the configured store or files beneath the configured artifact base directory, and when the PraisonAI process can read sensitive host files.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: Dynamic Context Discovery artifact helper tools
- Required access: Ability to influence a tool call, prompt, user request, or other input that supplies an artifact path
- Trigger point: Processing an artifact operation with the caller-provided path
- Required environmental condition: The PraisonAI process must have read permission for the targeted file
- Why exploitation is possible: The supplied path is wrapped into an artifact reference and read without sufficient store-ownership or base-directory containment checks
- Attack surface: Dynamic Context Discovery artifact helper tools
- Required access: Ability to influence a tool call, prompt, user request, or other input that supplies an artifact path
- Trigger point: Processing an artifact operation with the caller-provided path
- Required environmental condition: The PraisonAI process must have read permission for the targeted file
- Why exploitation is possible: The supplied path is wrapped into an artifact reference and read without sufficient store-ownership or base-directory containment checks
Why this happens
The underlying bug is improper trust of a caller-controlled filesystem path. The artifact helpers construct an ArtifactRef from the supplied value and access the host filesystem without first proving that the path represents an artifact managed by the configured store or remains within the permitted artifact directory. This behavior maps primarily to CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory, with a related information-disclosure impact described by CWE-200.
The underlying bug is improper trust of a caller-controlled filesystem path. The artifact helpers construct an ArtifactRef from the supplied value and access the host filesystem without first proving that the path represents an artifact managed by the configured store or remains within the permitted artifact directory. This behavior maps primarily to CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory, with a related information-disclosure impact described by CWE-200.
Potential impact
- Sensitive environment files, cloud credentials, or SSH keys may be disclosed
- Source code, project configuration, or other local data could be exposed
- Attackers may gain information useful for follow-on compromise
- Multi-tenant or shared-host confidentiality could be weakened
- Logs or downstream systems may receive sensitive file contents
- Sensitive environment files, cloud credentials, or SSH keys may be disclosed
- Source code, project configuration, or other local data could be exposed
- Attackers may gain information useful for follow-on compromise
- Multi-tenant or shared-host confidentiality could be weakened
- Logs or downstream systems may receive sensitive file contents
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on making artifact access store-aware and enforcing a narrow filesystem trust boundary.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Resolve artifact identifiers through the configured store rather than treating them as arbitrary paths
- Canonicalize paths and enforce containment beneath the configured artifact base directory
- Reject absolute paths, traversal components, symbolic-link escapes, and other out-of-scope references
- Apply allowlisted artifact identifiers and strict input validation before file access
- Run PraisonAI with the minimum filesystem permissions required for its workload
- Keep credentials and sensitive host files outside the process's readable scope where possible
- Avoid exposing unrestricted filesystem-backed tools to untrusted prompts or users
Mitigation generally focuses on making artifact access store-aware and enforcing a narrow filesystem trust boundary.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Resolve artifact identifiers through the configured store rather than treating them as arbitrary paths
- Canonicalize paths and enforce containment beneath the configured artifact base directory
- Reject absolute paths, traversal components, symbolic-link escapes, and other out-of-scope references
- Apply allowlisted artifact identifiers and strict input validation before file access
- Run PraisonAI with the minimum filesystem permissions required for its workload
- Keep credentials and sensitive host files outside the process's readable scope where possible
- Avoid exposing unrestricted filesystem-backed tools to untrusted prompts or users
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations can detect this class of issue through:
- Static analysis rules identifying file reads derived from tool arguments or prompt-controlled values
- Code review checks for missing canonicalization, directory containment, or artifact-ownership validation
- Tests covering absolute paths, traversal sequences, symbolic links, and paths outside the configured artifact root
- Runtime policy enforcement that restricts file access to approved directories
- Monitoring for artifact tool requests referencing unexpected locations or sensitive file patterns
- Automated security review tools that flag user-controlled paths flowing into filesystem APIs
Organizations can detect this class of issue through:
- Static analysis rules identifying file reads derived from tool arguments or prompt-controlled values
- Code review checks for missing canonicalization, directory containment, or artifact-ownership validation
- Tests covering absolute paths, traversal sequences, symbolic links, and paths outside the configured artifact root
- Runtime policy enforcement that restricts file access to approved directories
- Monitoring for artifact tool requests referencing unexpected locations or sensitive file patterns
- Automated security review tools that flag user-controlled paths flowing into filesystem APIs
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| github. | github.com/ |
