CVE-2025-59472VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-59472: 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 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.1.5, 15.5.9, 15.5.8 +57

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 2026-10-26.

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 >=15.0.0-canary.0 <15.0.0 >=15.0.1-canary.0 <15.0.1 >=15.0.2-canary.0 <15.0.2 >=15.0.3-canary.0 <15.0.3 >=15.0.4-canary.0 <15.0.4 >=15.1.0-canary.0 <15.1.0 >=15.1.1-canary.0 <15.1.1 >=15.1.2-canary.0 <15.1.2 >=15.1.3-canary.0 <15.1.3 >=15.1.4-canary.0 <15.1.4 >=15.1.5-canary.0 <15.1.5 >=15.1.6-canary.0 <15.1.6 >=15.1.7-canary.0 <15.1.7 >=15.2.0-canary.0 <15.2.0 >=15.2.1-canary.0 <15.2.1 >=15.2.2-canary.0 <15.2.2 >=15.2.3-canary.0 <15.2.3 >=15.2.4-canary.0 <15.2.4 >=15.2.5-canary.0 <15.2.5 >=15.3.0-canary.0 <15.3.0 >=15.3.1-canary.0 <15.3.1 >=15.3.2-canary.0 <15.3.2 >=15.1.8-canary.0 <15.1.8 >=15.3.3-canary.0 <15.3.3 >=15.4.0-canary.0 <15.4.0 >=15.3.4-canary.0 <15.3.4 >=15.3.5-canary.0 <15.3.5 >=15.4.1-canary.0 <15.4.1 >=15.4.2-canary.0 <15.4.2 >=15.4.3-canary.0 <15.4.3 >=15.4.4-canary.0 <15.4.4 >=15.4.5-canary.0 <15.4.5 >=15.4.6-canary.0 <15.4.6 >=15.4.7-canary.0 <15.4.7 >=15.5.0-canary.0 <15.5.0 >=15.5.1-canary.0 <15.5.1 >=15.5.2-canary.0 <15.5.2 >=15.5.3-canary.0 <15.5.3 >=15.5.4-canary.0 <15.5.4 >=15.5.5-canary.0 <15.5.5 >=15.5.6-canary.0 <15.5.6 >=15.5.7-canary.0 <15.5.7 >=15.4.8-canary.0 <15.4.8 >=15.1.9-canary.0 <15.1.9 >=15.0.5-canary.0 <15.0.5 >=15.3.6-canary.0 <15.3.6 >=15.2.6-canary.0 <15.2.6 >=15.5.8-canary.0 <15.5.8 >=15.4.9-canary.0 <15.4.9 >=15.3.7-canary.0 <15.3.7 >=15.2.7-canary.0 <15.2.7 >=15.1.10-canary.0 <15.1.10 >=15.0.6-canary.0 <15.0.6 >=15.5.9-canary.0 <15.5.9 >=15.4.10-canary.0 <15.4.10 >=15.3.8-canary.0 <15.3.8 >=15.2.8-canary.0 <15.2.8 >=15.1.11-canary.0 <15.1.11 >=15.0.7-canary.0 <15.0.7 >=16.1.0 <16.1.5	Fixed in 16.1.5 15.5.9 15.5.8 15.5.7 15.5.6 15.5.5 15.5.4 15.5.3 15.5.2 15.5.1 15.5.0 15.4.10 15.4.9 15.4.8 15.4.7 15.4.6 15.4.5 15.4.4 15.4.3 15.4.2 15.4.1 15.4.0 15.3.8 15.3.7 15.3.6 15.3.5 15.3.4 15.3.3 15.3.2 15.3.1 15.3.0 15.2.8 15.2.7 15.2.6 15.2.5 15.2.4 15.2.3 15.2.2 15.2.1 15.2.0 15.1.11 15.1.10 15.1.9 15.1.8 15.1.7 15.1.6 15.1.5 15.1.4 15.1.3 15.1.2 15.1.1 15.1.0 15.0.7 15.0.6 15.0.5 15.0.4 15.0.3 15.0.2 15.0.1 15.0.0

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade Next.js to version 15.6.0-canary.61 or 16.1.5 or later, which include patches to limit request body buffering and decompression output size. 2. Audit application configurations to identify use of experimental.ppr or cacheComponents features and the NEXT_PRIVATE_MINIMAL_MODE=1 environment variable; disable these features if not strictly necessary. 3. Implement application-layer request size limits and decompression size limits where possible to prevent large payload processing. 4. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block POST requests containing the 'Next-Resume: 1' header or suspiciously large payloads targeting the PPR resume endpoint. 5. Monitor server memory usage and Node.js process health to detect anomalous spikes indicative of exploitation attempts. 6. Use rate limiting on the PPR resume endpoint to reduce the risk of repeated exploitation attempts. 7. Conduct regular security testing and code reviews focusing on resource consumption vulnerabilities in server-side rendering features. 8. Coordinate with hosting providers or cloud platforms to apply network-level protections against zipbomb and large payload attacks. 9. Educate development teams about the risks of enabling experimental features in production environments without thorough security assessments.

Description

CVE-2025-59472 is a denial of service vulnerability in Vercel Next.js versions with Partial Prerendering (PPR) enabled and running in minimal mode. It allows unauthenticated attackers to send specially crafted POST requests with the 'Next-Resume: 1' header to the PPR resume endpoint, causing the server to exhaust memory and crash. The attack exploits two main issues: unbounded buffering of the request body and unbounded decompression of cached resume data, including a zipbomb-style payload. This leads to a fatal JavaScript heap out-of-memory error, terminating the Node.js process and causing application downtime. Exploitation requires the application to be configured with experimental.ppr or cacheComponents enabled and NEXT_PRIVATE_MINIMAL_MODE=1. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 5.9 (medium severity) and no known exploits in the wild.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the availability of web applications built on vulnerable Next.js versions with Partial Prerendering enabled in minimal mode. Successful exploitation results in server crashes due to memory exhaustion, causing denial of service and potential downtime of critical web services. This can disrupt business operations, degrade user experience, and potentially lead to financial losses and reputational damage. Since the attack requires no authentication and can bypass reverse proxy request size limits via zipbomb payloads, traditional perimeter defenses may be insufficient. Organizations relying on Next.js for customer-facing websites, e-commerce platforms, or internal portals are particularly vulnerable. The impact is amplified in sectors with high web traffic or stringent uptime requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government services. Additionally, the vulnerability could be exploited as part of larger distributed denial of service (DDoS) campaigns targeting European digital infrastructure. Although no data confidentiality or integrity is directly affected, the availability impact alone warrants urgent remediation to maintain service continuity and comply with regulatory requirements such as the EU NIS Directive.

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-5f7q-jpqc-wp7h (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Feb 2026, 08:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats