Skip to content

GHSA-2qv6-9wx5-cwv4 CVE-2026-44644

LiquidJS's strip_html filter bypass via newline characters in HTML tags enables XSS

Medium npm
Severity
6.1 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.25%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.34% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Fix
10.26.0
Upgrade liquidjs to this version or later

Description

Summary

The strip_html filter in liquidjs is intended to remove HTML tags from a string before rendering, and is widely used as an XSS sanitizer. The implementation uses a regex whose catch-all branch (<.*?>) does not match line terminators, so any HTML tag containing a \n or \r character passes through unmodified. An attacker who can place a newline inside a tag (e.g. <img\nsrc=x\nonerror=alert(1)>) bypasses sanitization entirely, since browsers treat newlines as whitespace within a tag and execute the resulting onerror/onload/etc. handler. This results in stored or reflected XSS in any application that relies on strip_html to neutralize untrusted HTML.

Details

The vulnerable code is in src/filters/html.ts:

// src/filters/html.ts:45-49
export function strip_html (this: FilterImpl, v: string) {
  const str = stringify(v)
  this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length)
  return str.replace(/<script[\s\S]*?<\/script>|<style[\s\S]*?<\/style>|<.*?>|<!--[\s\S]*?-->/g, '')
}

The regex has four alternations:

  1. <script[\s\S]*?<\/script> — uses [\s\S], matches across newlines.
  2. <style[\s\S]*?<\/style> — uses [\s\S], matches across newlines.
  3. <.*?> — uses ., which in JavaScript does not match \n or \r (no s/dotAll flag set).
  4. <!--[\s\S]*?--> — uses [\s\S], matches across newlines.

Branch 3 is the catch-all for "any other tag." Because . excludes line terminators, a tag containing a newline does not match any alternative. The literal characters of the tag are passed through to the output.

Browsers, however, parse HTML tag content with whitespace tolerance: per the HTML spec, attribute names and values may be separated by ASCII whitespace, which includes \n and \r. So <img\nsrc=x\nonerror=alert(1)> is parsed as a valid img element with an onerror handler.

liquidjs' default rendering pipeline does not auto-escape filter output (the outputEscape engine option is undefined by default — see src/liquid-options.ts), so the unescaped HTML is delivered verbatim to the consumer's HTML response.

Trust path:

  • Application receives untrusted input (e.g. user comment field).
  • Developer renders it as {{ comment | strip_html }} to "safely" embed user content as plaintext.
  • Attacker submits <img\u000Asrc=x\u000Aonerror=alert(document.cookie)>.
  • strip_html returns the input unchanged.
  • Output is written into the HTML response with no further escaping.
  • Victim's browser executes the attacker's JavaScript in the application's origin.

This is an inconsistency bug: the same regex correctly uses [\s\S] for <script>, <style>, and comment branches, but reverts to . for the catch-all. The other branches' authors clearly knew to handle multi-line content; the catch-all was missed.

PoC

Reproduces against current HEAD (10.25.7) using the published dist/liquid.node.js build:

node -e "
const { Liquid } = require('./dist/liquid.node.js');
const engine = new Liquid();
engine.parseAndRender(
  'Safe output: {{ input | strip_html }}',
  { input: '<img\nsrc=x\nonerror=\"alert(document.cookie)\">' }
).then(r => console.log(JSON.stringify(r)));
"

Verified output:

"Safe output: <img\nsrc=x\nonerror=\"alert(document.cookie)\">"

The <img ... onerror=...> tag is delivered to the output completely unmodified. When this string is placed into an HTML document and parsed by a browser, the onerror handler executes.

Same bypass works with \r (carriage return), \r\n, or any combination of CR/LF inside the tag. It also works with other event-handler vectors (<svg\nonload=alert(1)>, <body\nonload=alert(1)>, <iframe\nsrc="javascript:alert(1)">, etc.) and is not specific to <img>.

For comparison, the same input without a newline is correctly stripped:

node -e "
const { Liquid } = require('./dist/liquid.node.js');
const engine = new Liquid();
engine.parseAndRender(
  'Safe output: {{ input | strip_html }}',
  { input: '<img src=x onerror=\"alert(1)\">' }
).then(r => console.log(JSON.stringify(r)));
"
# → "Safe output: "

This confirms strip_html is intended to remove tags of this shape, and the newline form is a sanitizer bypass rather than expected behavior.

Impact

Any liquidjs-using application that:

  1. Renders attacker-controlled strings via {{ x | strip_html }} to defend against HTML injection, AND
  2. Does not separately HTML-escape that output (default behavior — outputEscape is unset by default),

Is vulnerable to stored or reflected XSS. The attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser in the application's origin, enabling session theft, account takeover, CSRF with origin-scoped credentials, and arbitrary actions in the victim's authenticated session. The XSS is triggered with simple, well-known event-handler payloads — no exotic encoding, no character set tricks, just a literal newline inside the tag.

The blast radius matches the deployment of liquidjs as a server-side template engine: liquidjs is one of the most popular Liquid implementations on npm (millions of downloads/week) and strip_html is documented as the sanitization filter for HTML stripping, so the vulnerable pattern ({{ user | strip_html }}) is the natural and recommended use of the filter.

Recommended Fix

Replace <.*?> with <[\s\S]*?> (or apply the s/dotAll flag to the entire regex) so the catch-all branch matches across line terminators, consistent with the other branches:

// src/filters/html.ts
export function strip_html (this: FilterImpl, v: string) {
  const str = stringify(v)
  this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length)
  return str.replace(/<script[\s\S]*?<\/script>|<style[\s\S]*?<\/style>|<[\s\S]*?>|<!--[\s\S]*?-->/g, '')
}

Equivalent fix using the dotAll flag (requires ES2018+, which liquidjs already targets):

return str.replace(/<script.*?<\/script>|<style.*?<\/style>|<.*?>|<!--.*?-->/gs, '')

After the fix, the PoC input is correctly reduced to an empty string. Note that strip_html should still not be relied on as a primary XSS defense — the project README/documentation should recommend HTML-escaping (escape filter) for untrusted content rendered into HTML contexts. A brief security note in the filter's documentation would help users who currently treat strip_html as a sanitizer.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
liquidjs
< 10.26.0
10.26.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

liquidjs npm → 10.26.0

npm
npm install liquidjs@10.26.0
yarn
yarn add liquidjs@10.26.0
pnpm
pnpm add liquidjs@10.26.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
  • Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
  • Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-fwxr-j5w2-587m
LiquidJS: ownPropertyOnly bypass for inherited array indices in first/last/join/reverse/slice/compact, `.first`/`.last`, negative index, and for-loop iteration
Medium Also affects liquidjs
GHSA-4r6h-5v86-94p3
LiquidJS: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in `join` filter allows template authors to bypass `memoryLimit` and crash the process
High Also affects liquidjs
GHSA-m7fp-h3p4-hr49
LiquidJS has an infinite loop vulnerability in its `strip_html` filter
High Also affects liquidjs
GHSA-g357-x5c3-c72p
LiquidJS: `pop` filter bypasses `memoryLimit` accounting that its array-filter siblings enforce
High Also affects liquidjs
GHSA-gf2q-c269-pqgc
LiquidJS is Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution
Critical Also affects liquidjs
GHSA-r7g9-xpmj-5fcq
LiquidJS Vulnerable to ReDoS via Quadratic Backtracking in `strip_html` Filter Regex
High Also affects liquidjs
GHSA-hh27-hf48-9f5q
LiquidJS has a memory and render limit bypass via unbounded width padding in `date` filter (strftime)
High Also affects liquidjs
GHSA-9x9p-qf8f-mvjg
LiquidJS's `{% render %}` tag silently bypasses per-render `ownPropertyOnly:true` via `Context.spawn()`
Medium Also affects liquidjs
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor