HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 44645 liquidjs has a renderlimit dos guard bypass via
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Medium · CVSS 6.5CVE-2026-44645GHSA-8XX9-69P8-7JP3

LiquidJS has a renderLimit DoS guard bypass via empty `{% for %}` bodyCVE-2026-44645

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-44645 records a Medium severity (CVSS 6.5) vulnerability in LiquidJS has a renderLimit DoS guard bypass via empty `{% for %}` body. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps liquidjs (npm), liquidjs (npm), liquidjs (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published May 27, 2026Updated Oct 27, 2026Source checked Oct 27, 2026First seen by HOL Jun 22, 2026Material review Oct 27, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Record context

Vulnerability class
Secret Exfiltration
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-400
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 27, 2026
References
7 linked sources
Open source record

Key facts

Risk
Medium · CVSS 6.5
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
3 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 6.5. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps liquidjs (npm), liquidjs (npm), liquidjs (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
liquidjsnpm<=10.25.7Not reported
liquidjsnpm<10.26.010.26.0
liquidjsnpm>=0 <10.26.010.26.0

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for liquidjs, liquidjs, liquidjs.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update liquidjs to 10.26.0; liquidjs to 10.26.0 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    May 27, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 27, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Jun 22, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

## Summary The `renderLimit` option — documented in `docs/source/tutorials/dos.md` as the mechanism that "mitigates this by limiting the time consumed by each render() call" — can be fully bypassed by a `{% for %}` (or `{% tablerow %}`) tag whose body is empty. The per-iteration time check is reached only when the body contains at least one template node, so a template like `{%- for i in (1..N) -%}{%- endfor -%}` iterates the full collection without ever consulting `renderLimit`. With a configured `renderLimit` of 50 ms, a single `parseAndRenderSync` call has been observed to consume **2.26 seconds** (~45× over the limit) and scales linearly with `N` up to `memoryLimit`, allowing a low-privileged template author to wedge an event-loop thread for an attacker-chosen duration. ## Details `Render.renderTemplates` is the single point at which `renderLimit` is consulted: ```ts // src/render/render.ts 14: public * renderTemplates (templates: Template[], ctx: Context, emitter?: Emitter): IterableIterator<any> { 15: if (!emitter) { 16: emitter = ctx.opts.keepOutputType ? new KeepingTypeEmitter() : new SimpleEmitter() 17: } 18: const errors = [] 19: for (const tpl of templates) { 20: ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now()) 21: try { 22: const html = yield tpl.render(ctx, emitter) ... 32: } ``` The check at line 20 lives **inside** the `for (const tpl of templates)` body. When `templates.length === 0`, the loop body never executes, so the limiter is never consulted on that invocation. The `for` tag re-enters `renderTemplates` once per collection item with no independent time check: ```ts // src/tags/for.ts 70: for (const item of collection) { 71: scope[this.variable] = item 72: ctx.continueCalled = ctx.breakCalled = false 73: yield r.renderTemplates(this.templates, ctx, emitter) 74: if (ctx.breakCalled) break 75: scope.forloop.next() 76: } ``` When `{%- for i in (1..N) -%}{%- endfor -%}` is parsed, `this.templates` is `[]`. Each of the `N` calls to `r.renderTemplates(this.templates, ctx, emitter)` therefore performs zero `renderLimit.check()` calls and zero template work — it just spins the JS-level `for` loop and the generator boilerplate. With `N = 30_000_000` this still costs ~2.26 s of CPU, and `N = 100_000_000` costs ~9.6 s, fully bypassing whatever wall-clock budget the integrator configured. The range expression itself is bounded only by `memoryLimit`: ```ts // src/render/expression.ts:67-72 function * evalRangeToken (token: RangeToken, ctx: Context) { const low: number = yield evalToken(token.lhs, ctx) const high: number = yield evalToken(token.rhs, ctx) ctx.memoryLimit.use(high - low + 1) return range(+low, +high + 1) } ``` So the maximum bypass is governed by the (separate) `memoryLimit`, not by `renderLimit`. Integrators following the `docs/source/tutorials/dos.md` guidance — which positions `renderLimit` as the time-based defense — get no time-based defense at all on this code path. ## PoC Reproduced against `[email protected]` (HEAD `34877950`): ```bash # Empty for-body bypasses renderLimit (50 ms) and runs for ~2.26 s: $ node -e "const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs'); const engine = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 1e9, renderLimit: 50 }); const t = Date.now(); engine.parseAndRenderSync('{%- for i in (1..30000000) -%}{%- endfor -%}', {}); console.log('Took', Date.now()-t, 'ms');" Took 2255 ms # Same template with a single-character body is correctly bounded: $ node -e "const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs'); const engine = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 1e9, renderLimit: 50 }); try { engine.parseAndRenderSync('{%- for i in (1..30000000) -%}.{%- endfor -%}', {}); } catch(e) { console.log('correctly threw:', e.message); }" correctly threw: template render limit exceeded, line:1, col:1 ``` Scaling `N`: - `N = 30_000_000` → 2255 ms (≈ 45× over the 50 ms limit) - `N = 100_000_000` → 9581 ms (≈ 191× over the 50 ms limit) Time grows linearly with `N`, capped only by `memoryLimit` (default `Infinity`, so the only cap by default is process memory). ## Impact Any liquidjs integrator who follows the upstream DoS guidance and sets a finite `renderLimit` to bound per-render CPU — typical for SaaS / multi-tenant environments where end users author templates (themes, email templates, snippets) — does not get the bound they configured. A single template submission can keep an event-loop thread busy for seconds, which on a Node.js server is sufficient to stall all in-flight requests on that worker. With a large enough range and a permissive `memoryLimit`, the wedge time is attacker-controlled. No data is exposed and no integrity is harmed; impact is availability only. ## Recommended Fix Move the `renderLimit` check to a location that runs unconditionally per `renderTemplates` invocation, so a zero-template body still triggers it; alternatively (or additionally) have iteration tags that invoke `renderTemplates` per element check the limiter themselves once per iteration. ```ts // src/render/render.ts — check at function entry, before the templates loop public * renderTemplates (templates: Template[], ctx: Context, emitter?: Emitter): IterableIterator<any> { if (!emitter) { emitter = ctx.opts.keepOutputType ? new KeepingTypeEmitter() : new SimpleEmitter() } ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now()) // <-- runs even when templates is empty const errors = [] for (const tpl of templates) { ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now()) ... } ... } ``` And/or, defensively, in the iteration tags themselves so the guard cost is paid once per element rather than only at re-entry: ```ts // src/tags/for.ts (around line 70) for (const item of collection) { ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now()) // <-- per-iteration time check scope[this.variable] = item ctx.continueCalled = ctx.breakCalled = false yield r.renderTemplates(this.templates, ctx, emitter) if (ctx.breakCalled) break scope.forloop.next() } // src/tags/tablerow.ts (around line 54) — analogous addition for (let idx = 0; idx < collection.length; idx++, tablerowloop.next()) { ctx.renderLimit.check(getPerformance().now()) ... } ``` The same hardening should be applied anywhere a tag drives an attacker-influenced loop count over a (potentially empty) `templates` array.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • a2aproject a2a-java ChildQueue queue.offer resource consumptionAlso CWE-400
  • a2aproject a2a-java Push Notification Config Store JpaDatabasePushNotificationConfigStore.java InMemoryPushNotificationConfigStore.setInfo resource consumptionAlso CWE-400