Skip to content

GHSA-hh27-hf48-9f5q CVE-2026-45357

LiquidJS has a memory and render limit bypass via unbounded width padding in `date` filter (strftime)

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.39%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.62% 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 date filter's strftime implementation parses width specifiers like %9999999d and forwards the captured width unchecked into pad()/padStart() in src/util/underscore.ts. The pad loop performs unbounded string concatenation without consulting the Context's memoryLimit or renderLimit, so a single small template ({{ x | date: '%5000000d' }}) produces megabytes of output and unbounded CPU. The memoryLimit and renderLimit options the docs (src/liquid-options.ts:87-92) advertise as DoS controls — and which the docstring explicitly mentions for strftime — are entirely bypassed.

Details

date.ts:5-13 only charges memoryLimit for the lengths of the input value, format string, and timezone:

export function date (this: FilterImpl, v: string | Date, format?: string, timezoneOffset?: number | string) {
  const size = ((v as string)?.length ?? 0) + (format?.length ?? 0) + ((timezoneOffset as string)?.length ?? 0)
  this.context.memoryLimit.use(size)
  ...
  return strftime(date, format)
}

strftime (src/util/strftime.ts:121) then walks the format with rFormat = /%([-_0^#:]+)?(\d+)?([EO])?(.)/. The captured width group is passed directly to padStart:

function format (d, match) {
  const [input, flagStr = '', width, modifier, conversion] = match
  ...
  let padWidth = width || padWidths[conversion] || 0
  ...
  return padStart(ret, padWidth, padChar)   // strftime.ts:147
}

padStart calls pad() in src/util/underscore.ts:153:

export function pad (str, length, ch, add) {
  str = String(str)
  let n = length - str.length
  while (n-- > 0) str = add(str, ch)   // unbounded loop
  return str
}

The loop has no upper bound and never consults this.context.memoryLimit or renderLimit. The pad is also implemented as repeated ch + str string concatenation, which makes the per-byte cost grow with output length and amplifies CPU consumption.

Filter arguments accept context-evaluated values (src/template/filter.ts:30-31, evalToken(arg, context)), so any deployment that passes a context value as the date format — a documented and tested usage pattern — exposes the sink to attacker-controlled input.

This is a separate sink from the previously-reported quadratic replace finding: a different filter (date), a different parser (the strftime width regex), and a different concatenation site (pad() in underscore.ts).

PoC

Setup: npm install liquidjs@10.25.7.

Step 1 — bypass memoryLimit and renderLimit (5 MB output, ~200 ms, both limits set to 50):

node -e "
const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
const liquid = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 50, renderLimit: 50 });
const t0 = Date.now();
const out = liquid.parseAndRenderSync('{{ d | date: f }}', { d: 'now', f: '%5000000d' });
console.log('len=', out.length, 'ms=', Date.now()-t0);
"

Verified output: len= 5000000 ms= 198. The memoryLimit:50 (50-byte budget) and renderLimit:50 (50 ms budget) are both ignored.

Step 2 — OOM-kill the Node process under a 200 MB heap cap:

node --max-old-space-size=200 -e "
const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
const liquid = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 50, renderLimit: 50 });
liquid.parseAndRenderSync('{{ d | date: f }}', { d: 'now', f: '%99999999d' });
"

Verified output: FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory. Process is killed.

The realistic attack template is {{ post.created_at | date: user_supplied_format }}, where user_supplied_format is any context value an attacker can influence (profile field, query param mapped into template context, etc.).

Impact

  • DoS against any LiquidJS-rendered surface where a context value reaches the date filter's format argument: a single render call can be turned into multi-MB allocations and seconds of CPU per request, or into an OOM that crashes the host process.
  • Bypass of the engine's two documented DoS controls — memoryLimit and renderLimit — meaning that operators who explicitly opted into DoS protection still have no defense for this code path.
  • All date_to_xmlschema, date_to_rfc822, date_to_string, date_to_long_string paths share the same sink via strftime, but with hard-coded formats they're not directly attacker-controllable; the user-facing risk is on date.

Recommended Fix

Two complementary fixes:

  1. Have pad() in src/util/underscore.ts charge the Context's memory limit and use String.prototype.repeat instead of an O(n) concatenation loop. Since pad() is generic, the simplest version takes the memory limit as a parameter:
export function pad (str: any, length: number, ch: string, add: (str: string, ch: string) => string) {
  str = String(str)
  const n = length - str.length
  if (n <= 0) return str
  return add === ((s, c) => c + s)
    ? ch.repeat(n) + str
    : str + ch.repeat(n)
}
  1. Cap padWidth in src/util/strftime.ts:141 and account for it via memoryLimit. The date filter (src/filters/date.ts) should also charge this.context.memoryLimit.use(parsedMaxWidth) before invoking strftime, e.g. by scanning the format for %(\d+) widths and summing them. A conservative cap (e.g. Math.min(width, 1024) for non-N conversions) is also reasonable — strftime widths beyond a few dozen characters have no legitimate use.

Both fixes are needed: the cap stops the OOM crash, the memory accounting restores the documented DoS guarantee.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
liquidjs
<= 10.25.7
No fix yet
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 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-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-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

Credits: 0xEr3n, Davithi, SiteQ8, offset

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