CVE-2026-60085
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedPraisonAI before 4.6.78 contains an unenforced security policy vulnerability in the default Subprocess Sandbox backend where blocked_commands, blocked_paths, blocked_imports, allow_subprocess, and allow_file_write restrictions are completely ignored. Attackers can execute arbitrary subprocess commands, read sensitive files, and perform destructive operations despite explicit security policy configuration.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidencePraiseonAI before 4.6.78 has a Subprocess Sandbox backend where configured security policies (blocked_commands, blocked_paths, blocked_imports, allow_subprocess, allow_file_write) are defined but never actually enforced in code, allowing attackers to bypass all restrictions and execute arbitrary commands, read sensitive files, or perform destructive operations.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed PraisonAI versionRun 'pip show praisonai' or 'python -c "import praisonai; print(praisonai.__version__)"' to get the installed version numberAffected if Version is before 4.6.78 (e.g., 4.6.77, 4.6.0, etc.)
-
Identify the sandbox backend configurationInspect your PraisonAI configuration or initialization code for the 'backend' or 'sandbox' setting. Look for 'Subprocess' or 'subprocess' being used as the backend optionAffected if The Subprocess Sandbox backend is enabled (value is 'Subprocess' or 'subprocess')
-
Check for security policy configurationSearch configuration files, environment variables, or initialization code for any of these settings: blocked_commands, blocked_paths, blocked_imports, allow_subprocess, allow_file_writeAffected if Any security policy settings are defined (the vulnerability is that these policies exist but are not enforced)
You are affected if you use PraisonAI version below 4.6.78 with the Subprocess Sandbox backend and have security policies configured or expect them to work.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to PraisonAI version 4.6.78 or later where security policy restrictions are properly enforced in the Subprocess Sandbox backend.
PraisonAI 4.6.78 or later
- 1. Check current installed version of PraisonAI using: pip show praisonai or pip list | grep praisonai
- 2. Upgrade to version 4.6.78 or later using: pip install --upgrade praisonai>=4.6.78
- 3. Verify the upgrade was successful by running: pip show praisonai and confirming the version number
- 4. Test that the Subprocess Sandbox security policies (blocked_commands, blocked_paths, blocked_imports, allow_subprocess, allow_file_write) are now properly enforced
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-60085 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-60085 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data