CVE-2026-39859
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedLiquidJS is a Shopify / GitHub Pages compatible template engine in pure JavaScript. Prior to 10.25.3, liquidjs 10.25.0 documents root as constraining filenames passed to renderFile() and parseFile(), but top-level file loads do not enforce that boundary. A Liquid instance configured with an empty temporary directory as root can return the contents of arbitrary files. This vulnerability is fixed in 10.25.3.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceLiquidJS template engine versions prior to 10.25.3 contain a path traversal vulnerability where the root directory configuration intended to constrain file access via renderFile() and parseFile() is not enforced for top-level file loads. An attacker can configure Liquid with an empty temporary directory as root and read arbitrary files from the system by manipulating file paths in template rendering.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 10.25.3CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed LiquidJS versionRun 'npm list liquidjs' or check package.json dependencies to find the installed version of liquidjsAffected if The installed version is lower than 10.25.3 (e.g., 10.25.2, 10.24.0, etc.)
-
Identify use of renderFile() or parseFile()Search codebase for calls to renderFile() or parseFile() methods from the LiquidJS libraryAffected if These methods are being called in the application code
-
Check if file input is user-controlledReview the code paths that pass filenames to renderFile() or parseFile() - trace back to see if the filename originates from user input (request parameters, API input, etc.)Affected if User-supplied or external input flows directly to these file-loading functions without validation
-
Verify input sanitization for traversal sequencesInspect the code handling filenames before passing to renderFile()/parseFile() - look for removal or blocking of '../' or '..\' sequencesAffected if No sanitization for path traversal sequences exists, or sanitization can be bypassed
-
Check root directory configurationReview how the root directory is configured when initializing the Liquid template engine - check for dynamic or temporary directory roots that may be usedAffected if A temporary directory or improperly sandboxed directory is configured as the root
You are affected if running LiquidJS version below 10.25.3 AND your application uses renderFile()/parseFile() with user-controlled filenames that are not sanitized for path traversal sequences.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped10.25.3
Upgrade to LiquidJS version 10.25.3 or later. If upgrading is not immediately possible, avoid using renderFile()/parseFile() with untrusted input and validate all file paths before rendering.
liquidjs version 10.25.3 or later
- 1. Identify all projects or services that use the liquidjs library
- 2. Run a dependency check (e.g., npm list liquidjs, grep package.json) to find the current version in use
- 3. Update the package.json dependency to version 10.25.3 or later using: npm install liquidjs@^10.25.3 or yarn add liquidjs@^10.25.3
- 4. Run npm update or yarn upgrade to pull the new version
- 5. Rebuild and redeploy any affected applications
- 6. Verify the fix by testing that renderFile() and parseFile() now properly enforce the configured root directory
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-39859 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-39859 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data