Skip to content

GHSA-g357-x5c3-c72p CVE-2026-55575

LiquidJS: `pop` filter bypasses `memoryLimit` accounting that its array-filter siblings enforce

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.49%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
10.27.1
Upgrade liquidjs to this version or later

Description

pop filter bypasses memoryLimit accounting that its array-filter siblings enforce

CWE: CWE-770 (Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling) — sibling class of GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3 and GHSA-2546-xv4c-mc8g, applied to memoryLimit instead of renderLimit

Summary

The pop array filter at src/filters/array.ts:91-95 allocates a full clone of its input array via [...toArray(v)] but does not call this.context.memoryLimit.use(...) the way every other array-clone filter in the same file does (shift, unshift, compact, concat, reverse, sample, slice, map, sortBy, where, group_by, uniq). This silently disables the memoryLimit budget for {{ huge_array | pop }}, letting a template render allocate an O(N) clone of an attacker-influenced array regardless of how strictly memoryLimit is set.

Affected

  • liquidjs ≥ all versions that ship the current pop filter implementation (verified 10.27.0, HEAD a8fd734b5)
  • Deployments where any template uses {{ arr | pop }} on an array whose length is influenced by untrusted input (typical multi-tenant context arrays: orders, log lines, catalog entries, user lists, etc.)

Vulnerability details

Code

src/filters/array.ts:91-95:

export function pop<T> (v: T[]): T[] {
  const clone = [...toArray(v)]   // O(N) allocation — not charged to memoryLimit
  clone.pop()
  return clone
}

Note: the function signature does not even declare this: FilterImpl, so it has no typed access to this.context.memoryLimit at the type level — a visual tell that the author skipped the limit-accounting boilerplate the surrounding filters use.

Compare with shift (src/filters/array.ts:97-103), which is functionally identical except for the array-end operated on:

export function shift<T> (this: FilterImpl, v: T[]): T[] {
  const array = toArray(v)
  this.context.memoryLimit.use(array.length)   // ← guard present
  const clone = [...array]
  clone.shift()
  return clone
}

And unshift, compact, concat, reverse, sample, slice, map, sortBy, where, group_by, uniq — all of which also charge memoryLimit.use(array.length) (or lhs.length + rhs.length etc.) before allocating their working buffer.

The asymmetry confirms pop is an accidental omission, not by design.

Why the bypass matters

memoryLimit is the documented control for bounding the memory a single render() call may allocate (docs/source/tutorials/dos.md). Every array-output filter in src/filters/array.ts other than pop deducts its working set from the limit, so a render that does {{ huge | shift }} with memoryLimit: 100 and huge.length === 5_000_000 correctly throws memory alloc limit exceeded. The identical {{ huge | pop }} does not throw — the allocation proceeds, and the only ceiling is the Node process's heap.

Proof of concept

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

const l    = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 100 });        // 100-unit budget
const huge = Array(5_000_000).fill('x');              // 5M-element context array

(async () => {
  try { await l.parseAndRender('{{ a | shift | size }}', { a: huge }); }
  catch (e) { console.log('shift:   ' + e.message); }      // expected: memory alloc limit exceeded

  try { await l.parseAndRender('{{ a | unshift: 0 | size }}', { a: huge }); }
  catch (e) { console.log('unshift: ' + e.message); }      // expected: memory alloc limit exceeded

  const out = await l.parseAndRender('{{ a | pop | size }}', { a: huge });
  console.log('pop:     OK, size=' + out);                  // size=4999999 — allocation succeeded
})();

Observed (against dist/liquid.node.js at a8fd734b5):

shift:   memory alloc limit exceeded, line:1, col:1
unshift: memory alloc limit exceeded, line:1, col:1
pop:     OK, size=4999999

Impact

  • memoryLimit does not bound pop allocations. Any template that can reach {{ <untrusted-sized array> | pop }} allocates an O(N) clone outside the budget.
  • Realistic attack surface: when a server passes an attacker-influenced large array to the template context (search results, paginated lists, batch-export pages) and the template uses | pop anywhere on it, a single render can allocate hundreds of MB of array slots that the operator believed memoryLimit had ruled out.
  • Concurrent amplification: N parallel requests each allocate their own unguarded clone — the practical ceiling is the Node process heap, after which the host runs oom-kill. This is the same outcome the renderLimit-empty-body advisories (GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3 / GHSA-2546-xv4c-mc8g) prevented for CPU; this report prevents it for memory.

Severity is configuration-dependent (requires memoryLimit to be set, plus a template that uses pop, plus attacker-influenced array length). For deployments that rely on memoryLimit as a DoS guard, this is a real bypass of that guard.

Workaround for users

Until a fix lands, deployments relying on memoryLimit should either:

  • Avoid | pop in templates whose inputs include untrusted-length arrays. Use | slice: 0, arr.size | minus: 1 or equivalent guarded alternatives.

  • Register a wrapping pop filter that does the accounting:

    liquid.registerFilter('pop', function (v) {
      const arr = Array.from(v ?? []);
      this.context.memoryLimit.use(arr.length);
      arr.pop();
      return arr;
    });
    

Suggested fix

One-line addition mirroring shift:

export function pop<T> (this: FilterImpl, v: T[]): T[] {
  const array = toArray(v)
  this.context.memoryLimit.use(array.length)   // ← add this line, and add `this: FilterImpl`
  const clone = [...array]
  clone.pop()
  return clone
}

No API or behavior change for callers within budget; rejects out-of-budget calls with the standard memory alloc limit exceeded exception the sibling filters already throw.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
liquidjs
< 10.27.1
10.27.1

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 → 10.27.1

npm
npm install liquidjs@10.27.1
yarn
yarn add liquidjs@10.27.1
pnpm
pnpm add liquidjs@10.27.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • 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, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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, typically by using increasing time delays 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 can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

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-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
GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3
LiquidJS has a renderLimit DoS guard bypass via empty `{% for %}` body
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