<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-10-06T03:00:18.778317+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>csirt@opendfir.org</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2026-44335</id>
    <title>CVE-2026-44335 — SSRF bypass in PraisonAI</title>
    <updated>2026-10-06T03:00:18.779909+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> MervinPraison PraisonAI</p>
<p>PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.6.32, the URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. This issue has been patched in version 1.6.32.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2026-44335"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-q9pw-vmhh-384g</id>
    <title>GHSA-q9pw-vmhh-384g — PraisonAI has an SSRF bypass</title>
    <updated>2026-10-06T03:00:18.779964+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: praisonaiagents</p>
<p>### Summary
The URL checking logic in PraisonAI has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks.</p>
<p>### Details
The current PraisonAI project uses _validate_url to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL extracted by urlparse to prevent SSRF attacks.</p>
<p>&lt;img width="1290" height="1145" alt="QQ20260424-151256-24-1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d5f16b74-5ad2-444f-8600-b05f78a4b769" /&gt;</p>
<p>However, there are indeed differences in parsing between urlparse and the library that actually sends the request. Currently, almost all application scenarios in this project involve first using _validate_url for URL validation, and then using _get_session().get to send the request.</p>
<p>&lt;img width="1143" height="740" alt="QQ20260424-151437-24-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b1bf6ec2-d32a-4dac-b814-da819e8d3c83" /&gt;</p>
<p>In reality, its underlying mechanism is requests.get.</p>
<p>&lt;img width="1042" height="576" alt="QQ20260424-151645-24-3" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e17352c3-4205-44d6-ab6e-75566480215b" /&gt;</p>
<p>The core issue: `urlparse()` and `requests` disagree on which host a URL like `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1` points to:</p>
<p>- `urlparse()` treats `\` as a regular character and `@` as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as `1.1.1.1` (public)
- `requests` treats `\` as a path character, connecting to `127.0.0.1` (internal)</p>
<p>Below is a test code I wr…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-q9pw-vmhh-384g"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
