CVE-2025-49826
Vercel Next.Js 15.0.4 – 15.1.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-49826 is a high-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Vercel Next.Js. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 37% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-19910
Vulnerability Data
Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From versions 15.0.4-canary.51 to before 15.1.8, a cache poisoning bug leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) condition was found in Next.js. This issue does not impact customers hosted on…
more
Vercel. Under certain conditions, this issue may allow a HTTP 204 response to be cached for static pages, leading to the 204 response being served to all users attempting to access the page. This issue has been addressed in version 15.1.8.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.1.3V4.2.4V1.5.3V4.1.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Boundary protection at external interfaces can enforce consistent HTTP request/response parsing rules between intermediaries and endpoints.
Validating HTTP inputs at the intermediary prevents malformed messages from being interpreted inconsistently downstream.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.
Network monitoring can detect smuggling attempts via anomalous HTTP traffic or logs, while eliminating the inconsistency directly aids detection of such events.
Network protections can enforce consistent HTTP proxy/firewall behavior to block smuggling, and removing the weakness helps prevent unauthorized access via request smuggling.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities in intermediary components.
Network security controls can enforce consistent HTTP parsing and proxy behavior that mitigates request smuggling.
Secure network services include hardening proxies and gateways against inconsistent HTTP interpretation.
Secure SDLC practices require threat modeling and testing for HTTP parsing inconsistencies in intermediaries.
Application security requirements can mandate strict HTTP message validation and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles include consistent protocol handling and defense-in-depth for proxies.