CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-45617NVD status: Deferred

liquidjs: Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity

CVE-2026-45617 is a high-severity inefficient regular expression complexity vulnerability in liquidjs from Harttle, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected liquidjs versions: < 10.26.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.46% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of liquidjs you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
  3. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Harttleliquidjs< 10.26.0Not stated

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
NoneNo data is disclosed.
Integrity
NoneNothing can be modified.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).

Official description

LiquidJS is a Shopify/GitHub Pages compatible template engine written in pure JavaScript. In versions 10.25.7 and below, the built-in strip_html filter uses a regex containing four flawed lazy-quantified alternatives, leading to ReDoS via quadratic backtracking. 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. A single unauthenticated request containing crafted untrusted input can cause severe event-loop blocking and CPU amplification that saturates Node.js workers while bypassing memoryLimit protections. This issue has been fixed in version 10.26.0.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity

The product uses a regular expression with a worst-case computational complexity that is inefficient and possibly exponential.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Use regular expressions that do not support backtracking, e.g. by removing nested quantifiers.
  • Set backtracking limits in the configuration of the regular expression implementation, such as PHP's pcre.backtrack_limit. Also consider limits on execution time for the process.
  • Do not use regular expressions with untrusted input. If regular expressions must be used, avoid using backtracking in the expression.

More Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity vulnerabilities (CWE-1333)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in liquidjs

All liquidjs vulnerabilities

Recent Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.