CVE-2026-40156 — PraisonAI Affected by Implicit Execution of Arbitrary Code via Automatic `tools.py` Loading
PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to 4.5.128, PraisonAI automatically loads a file named tools.py from the current working directory to discover and register custom agent tools. This loading process uses importlib.util.spec_from_file_location and immediately executes module-level code via spec.loader.exec_module() without explicit user consent, validation, or sandboxing. The tools.py file is loaded implicitly, even when it is not referenced in configuration files or explicitly requested by the user. As a result, merely placing a file named tools.py in the working directory is sufficient to trigger code execution. This behavior violates the expected security boundary between user-controlled project files (e.g., YAML configurations) and executable code, as untrusted content in the working directory is treated as trusted and executed automatically. If an attacker can place a malicious tools.py file into a directory where a user or automated system (e.g., CI/CD pipeline) runs praisonai, arbitrary code execution occurs immediately upon startup, before any agent logic begins. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.5.128.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+2
- Technical severity (high)+6
- CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (MervinPraison PraisonAI, Praison Praisonai).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MervinPraison | PraisonAI | version < 4.5.128 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| Praison | Praisonai | < 4.5.128 | Vulnerable | NIST National Vulnerability Database |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 1.8 | 5.9 | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.8 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.23%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
- Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · mervinpraison/praisonai
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 7.8
- Source status changed · → Analyzed
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
1 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-57118 PraisonAI AgentTeam.launch exposes unauthenticated remote agent listing and invocation endpoints 3d
- Critical CVE-2026-62176 PraisonAI: Code Injection via f-string Interpolation in Deploy API Server Generation 8d
- High CVE-2026-61446 PraisonAI before 1.6.78 Remote Code Execution via Plugin Auto-Discovery Jul 15, 2026
- High CVE-2026-61443 PraisonAI before 1.6.78 Remote Code Execution via SkillTools Jul 15, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-61440 PraisonAI Platform before 0.1.9 Authorization Bypass via Label Endpoints Jul 15, 2026
- High CVE-2026-61430 PraisonAI before 1.6.78 DNS Rebinding SSRF via web_crawl Jul 15, 2026
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-40156 is "PraisonAI Affected by Implicit Execution of Arbitrary Code via Automatic `tools.py` Loading", rated High. It affects PraisonAI (MervinPraison); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.23% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.