CVE-2026-55575
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 10.27.1, the pop array filter at src/filters/array.ts allocated a full clone of its input array via [...toArray(v)] without calling this.context.memoryLimit.use(...), allowing a template render such as {{ huge_array | pop }} to allocate an O(N) clone of an attacker-influenced array outside the configured memoryLimit budget. This issue is fixed in version 10.27.1.
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 prior to 10.27.1 has a memory limit bypass in the pop array filter. The filter clones the input array via spread operator `[...toArray(v)]` without using the configured memoryLimit context, allowing an attacker-controlled template to allocate O(N) copies of large arrays beyond the intended memory budget.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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.
-
Identify LiquidJS versionRun `npm list liquidjs` or check package.json dependencies to find the installed version of LiquidJSAffected if Version is lower than 10.27.1 (e.g., 10.27.0, 10.26.0, etc.)
-
Locate pop filter usage in templatesSearch template files (e.g., .liquid, .html with liquid tags) for occurrences of the `| pop` filter, especially in loops or with variable inputAffected if Templates contain `| pop` filter applied to arrays that could be influenced by user input
-
Verify memoryLimit configurationCheck the LiquidJS initialization code for memoryLimit option (e.g., `new Liquid({ memoryLimit: ... })`)Affected if memoryLimit is configured but the pop filter implementation does not respect it (only verifiable by code review or testing large array inputs)
-
Test pop filter with large arraysCreate a test template using pop filter on a large array (e.g., array with 100k+ elements) and monitor memory consumptionAffected if Memory usage grows beyond the configured memoryLimit when using the pop filter
You are affected if running LiquidJS version below 10.27.1 and your templates pass user-influenced arrays to the pop filter without memoryLimit protection.
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 · scopedUpgrade LiquidJS to version 10.27.1 or later. Audit existing templates for user-influenced arrays passed to the pop filter.
10.27.1
- Update the liquidjs package to version 10.27.1 or later using your package manager (e.g., npm install liquidjs@^10.27.1 or yarn add liquidjs@^10.27.1)
- Verify the fix by testing templates that use the pop filter with large arrays to confirm memoryLimit is properly enforced
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,152.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-55575 — 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-2026-55575 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