CVE-2025-59471VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-59471: vercel next · Vulnerability

Affects vercel nextSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium · fixed in 16.1.5 : update vercel next when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.1.5, 15.5.10, 14.0 +4

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
vercelnext	Affected >=10.0 <10.0 >=11.0 <11.0 >=12.0 <12.0 >=13.0 <13.0 >=14.0 <14.0 >=15.0 <15.5.10 >=16.0 <16.1.5	Fixed in 16.1.5 15.5.10 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0
GitHubvercel/next.js`pkg:github/vercel/next.js`Other threats	Affected =10.0 =11.0 =12.0 =13.0 =14.0 =15.0 =16.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade Next.js to version 15.5.10 or 16.1.5 or later, which include fixes to enforce maximum image size limits and prevent memory exhaustion. 2. Review and restrict the remotePatterns configuration to only trusted and necessary external domains to minimize exposure. 3. Implement network-level protections such as rate limiting and request size limits on the image optimization endpoint to reduce the risk of abuse. 4. Monitor application logs and resource usage for unusual spikes in memory consumption or image optimization requests. 5. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block requests for unusually large images or suspicious patterns targeting the image optimizer endpoint. 6. Educate development and operations teams about the risks of overly permissive remotePatterns configurations and enforce secure coding and deployment practices.

Description

CVE-2025-59471 is a denial of service vulnerability affecting self-hosted Next.js applications using the Image Optimizer with remotePatterns configured for external domains. The vulnerability arises because the image optimization endpoint loads external images fully into memory without size limits, allowing attackers to cause out-of-memory conditions by requesting large images. Exploitation requires that remotePatterns allow external domains and that attackers control or serve large images from these domains. The vulnerability affects Next.js versions 10.0 through 16.0. No authentication or user interaction is needed, but the attack complexity is high due to the need to control large images on allowed domains. The CVSS score is 5.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk of denial of service, potentially causing web application outages or degraded performance for services relying on self-hosted Next.js with the Image Optimizer configured to fetch images from external domains. This can disrupt business operations, customer access, and damage reputation. Organizations with high traffic or those serving large volumes of image content are particularly vulnerable to resource exhaustion attacks. The impact is availability-focused, with no direct compromise of confidentiality or integrity. Given the medium CVSS score and the requirement for specific configuration and attacker capabilities, the risk is moderate but significant for critical web services. Disruptions could affect e-commerce platforms, media sites, and any web services relying on Next.js image optimization, especially if no mitigations are applied.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/vercel/next.js/security/advisories/GHSA-9g9p-9gw9-jx7f (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Feb 2026, 08:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats