GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3 CVE-2026-44645
LiquidJS has a renderLimit DoS guard bypass via empty `{% for %}` body
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.39%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.61% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
- Fix
10.26.0- Upgrade liquidjs to this version or later
Description
Summary
The renderLimit option — documented in docs/source/tutorials/dos.md as the mechanism that "mitigates this by limiting the time consumed by each render() call" — can be fully bypassed by a {% for %} (or {% tablerow %}) tag whose body is empty. The per-iteration time check is reached only when the body contains at least one template node, so a template like {%- for i in (1..N) -%}{%- endfor -%} iterates the full collection without ever consulting renderLimit. With a configured renderLimit of 50 ms, a single parseAndRenderSync call has been observed to consume 2.26 seconds (~45× over the limit) and scales linearly with N up to memoryLimit, allowing a low-privileged template author to wedge an event-loop thread for an attacker-chosen duration.
Details
Render.renderTemplates is the single point at which renderLimit is consulted:
// src/render/render.ts
14: public * renderTemplates (templates: Template[], ctx: Context, emitter?: Emitter): IterableIterator<any> {
15: if (!emitter) {
16: emitter = ctx.opts.keepOutputType ? new KeepingTypeEmitter() : new SimpleEmitter()
17: }
18: const errors = []
19: for (const tpl of templates) {
20: ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now())
21: try {
22: const html = yield tpl.render(ctx, emitter)
...
32: }
The check at line 20 lives inside the for (const tpl of templates) body. When templates.length === 0, the loop body never executes, so the limiter is never consulted on that invocation.
The for tag re-enters renderTemplates once per collection item with no independent time check:
// src/tags/for.ts
70: for (const item of collection) {
71: scope[this.variable] = item
72: ctx.continueCalled = ctx.breakCalled = false
73: yield r.renderTemplates(this.templates, ctx, emitter)
74: if (ctx.breakCalled) break
75: scope.forloop.next()
76: }
When {%- for i in (1..N) -%}{%- endfor -%} is parsed, this.templates is []. Each of the N calls to r.renderTemplates(this.templates, ctx, emitter) therefore performs zero renderLimit.check() calls and zero template work — it just spins the JS-level for loop and the generator boilerplate. With N = 30_000_000 this still costs ~2.26 s of CPU, and N = 100_000_000 costs ~9.6 s, fully bypassing whatever wall-clock budget the integrator configured.
The range expression itself is bounded only by memoryLimit:
// src/render/expression.ts:67-72
function * evalRangeToken (token: RangeToken, ctx: Context) {
const low: number = yield evalToken(token.lhs, ctx)
const high: number = yield evalToken(token.rhs, ctx)
ctx.memoryLimit.use(high - low + 1)
return range(+low, +high + 1)
}
So the maximum bypass is governed by the (separate) memoryLimit, not by renderLimit. Integrators following the docs/source/tutorials/dos.md guidance — which positions renderLimit as the time-based defense — get no time-based defense at all on this code path.
PoC
Reproduced against liquidjs@10.25.7 (HEAD 34877950):
# Empty for-body bypasses renderLimit (50 ms) and runs for ~2.26 s:
$ node -e "const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
const engine = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 1e9, renderLimit: 50 });
const t = Date.now();
engine.parseAndRenderSync('{%- for i in (1..30000000) -%}{%- endfor -%}', {});
console.log('Took', Date.now()-t, 'ms');"
Took 2255 ms
# Same template with a single-character body is correctly bounded:
$ node -e "const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
const engine = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 1e9, renderLimit: 50 });
try { engine.parseAndRenderSync('{%- for i in (1..30000000) -%}.{%- endfor -%}', {}); }
catch(e) { console.log('correctly threw:', e.message); }"
correctly threw: template render limit exceeded, line:1, col:1
Scaling N:
N = 30_000_000→ 2255 ms (≈ 45× over the 50 ms limit)N = 100_000_000→ 9581 ms (≈ 191× over the 50 ms limit)
Time grows linearly with N, capped only by memoryLimit (default Infinity, so the only cap by default is process memory).
Impact
Any liquidjs integrator who follows the upstream DoS guidance and sets a finite renderLimit to bound per-render CPU — typical for SaaS / multi-tenant environments where end users author templates (themes, email templates, snippets) — does not get the bound they configured. A single template submission can keep an event-loop thread busy for seconds, which on a Node.js server is sufficient to stall all in-flight requests on that worker. With a large enough range and a permissive memoryLimit, the wedge time is attacker-controlled. No data is exposed and no integrity is harmed; impact is availability only.
Recommended Fix
Move the renderLimit check to a location that runs unconditionally per renderTemplates invocation, so a zero-template body still triggers it; alternatively (or additionally) have iteration tags that invoke renderTemplates per element check the limiter themselves once per iteration.
// src/render/render.ts — check at function entry, before the templates loop
public * renderTemplates (templates: Template[], ctx: Context, emitter?: Emitter): IterableIterator<any> {
if (!emitter) {
emitter = ctx.opts.keepOutputType ? new KeepingTypeEmitter() : new SimpleEmitter()
}
ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now()) // <-- runs even when templates is empty
const errors = []
for (const tpl of templates) {
ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now())
...
}
...
}
And/or, defensively, in the iteration tags themselves so the guard cost is paid once per element rather than only at re-entry:
// src/tags/for.ts (around line 70)
for (const item of collection) {
ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now()) // <-- per-iteration time check
scope[this.variable] = item
ctx.continueCalled = ctx.breakCalled = false
yield r.renderTemplates(this.templates, ctx, emitter)
if (ctx.breakCalled) break
scope.forloop.next()
}
// src/tags/tablerow.ts (around line 54) — analogous addition
for (let idx = 0; idx < collection.length; idx++, tablerowloop.next()) {
ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now())
...
}
The same hardening should be applied anywhere a tag drives an attacker-influenced loop count over a (potentially empty) templates array.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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