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 45617 liquidjs vulnerable to redos via quadratic
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
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High · CVSS 7.5CVE-2026-45617GHSA-R7G9-XPMJ-5FCQ

LiquidJS Vulnerable to ReDoS via Quadratic Backtracking in `strip_html` Filter RegexCVE-2026-45617

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-45617 records a High severity (CVSS 7.5) vulnerability in LiquidJS Vulnerable to ReDoS via Quadratic Backtracking in `strip_html` Filter Regex. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps 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 25, 2026Source checked Nov 1, 2026First seen by HOL Jun 22, 2026Material review Oct 25, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 7.5
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 7.5. 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). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
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.
  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:nvd:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 25, 2026

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

## 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`: ```ts 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: 1. `<script[\s\S]*?<\/script>` 2. `<style[\s\S]*?<\/style>` 3. `<.*?>` 4. `<!--[\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: 1. `strip_html` is a default-registered filter (exported from `src/filters/html.ts`, wired up via `src/filters/index.ts`), invocable from any template via `{{ x | strip_html }}`. 2. The filter calls `String.prototype.replace` with the vulnerable regex directly on the caller-supplied string, with no length cap and no timeout. 3. The default `memoryLimit` is `Infinity` (`src/liquid-options.ts:198`); the filter only charges `str.length` against 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 `[email protected]` bundle on Node 22 / Linux: ```bash 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: ```bash 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_html` is sanitizing untrusted input (comments, posts, profile bios, product descriptions). Any endpoint that renders user content through `strip_html` is exposed. - **memoryLimit doesn't help:** Even applications that opt into `memoryLimit` are not protected, because (a) the regex CPU runs to completion before any output is produced, and (b) only `str.length` is 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): ```ts 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: ```ts export function strip_html (this: FilterImpl, v: string) { const str = stringify(v) this.context.memoryLimit.use(str.length) // ... linear-time strip implementation here } ```

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Missing Auth
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-1333
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Nov 1, 2026
References
6 linked sources
Open source record