Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-59472 is a medium-severity Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) vulnerability in Vercel Next.Js. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique OS Exhaustion Flood (T1499.001); ranked at the 29th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-59472 is a denial-of-service vulnerability in Next.js versions configured with Partial Prerendering (PPR) enabled via `experimental.ppr: true` or `cacheComponents: true`, and running in minimal mode with the `NEXT_PRIVATE_MINIMAL_MODE=1` environment variable. The issue stems from the PPR resume endpoint, which accepts unauthenticated POST requests bearing the `Next-Resume: 1` header and processes attacker-controlled postponed state data. Two related flaws enable server crashes through memory exhaustion: unbounded buffering of the entire POST request body using `Buffer.concat()` without size limits, and unbounded decompression of the resume data cache via `inflateSync()`, which permits zipbomb payloads that expand small inputs into hundreds of megabytes or gigabytes.
An unauthenticated network attacker can exploit this by sending crafted POST requests to the resume endpoint. Large payloads directly exhaust memory during buffering, while compressed zipbombs evade reverse proxy size limits yet trigger massive decompression on the server. In both cases, the result is a fatal V8 out-of-memory error ("FATAL ERROR: Reached heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory"), terminating the Node.js process and disrupting service availability. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.9 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H) and maps to CWE-400 (Uncontrolled Resource Consumption).
The Next.js security advisory at https://github.com/vercel/next.js/security/advisories/GHSA-5f7q-jpqc-wp7h recommends upgrading to version 15.6.0-canary.61 or 16.1.5 to mitigate the risks and prevent availability issues in affected applications.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206333
Vulnerability Data
A denial of service vulnerability exists in Next.js versions with Partial Prerendering (PPR) enabled when running in minimal mode. The PPR resume endpoint accepts unauthenticated POST requests with the `Next-Resume: 1` header and processes attacker-controlled postponed state data. Two closely…
more
related vulnerabilities allow an attacker to crash the server process through memory exhaustion: 1. **Unbounded request body buffering**: The server buffers the entire POST request body into memory using `Buffer.concat()` without enforcing any size limit, allowing arbitrarily large payloads to exhaust available memory. 2. **Unbounded decompression (zipbomb)**: The resume data cache is decompressed using `inflateSync()` without limiting the decompressed output size. A small compressed payload can expand to hundreds of megabytes or gigabytes, causing memory exhaustion. Both attack vectors result in a fatal V8 out-of-memory error (`FATAL ERROR: Reached heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory`) causing the Node.js process to terminate. The zipbomb variant is particularly dangerous as it can bypass reverse proxy request size limits while still causing large memory allocation on the server. To be affected you must have an application running with `experimental.ppr: true` or `cacheComponents: true` configured along with the NEXT_PRIVATE_MINIMAL_MODE=1 environment variable. Strongly consider upgrading to 15.6.0-canary.61 or 16.1.5 to reduce risk and prevent availability issues in Next applications.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SC-5 directly limits the effects of resource-exhaustion events that constitute uncontrolled consumption.
SC-6 enforces explicit allocation limits on resources, structurally preventing the weakness from occurring.
Process isolation confines resource consumption to separate domains, reducing blast radius without stopping the root flaw.
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.
Explicitly requires monitoring and maintaining resource capacity, directly addressing uncontrolled consumption to preserve availability.
Continuous monitoring of computing resources can detect resource exhaustion but does not itself enforce allocation limits.
Resilience mechanisms such as avoiding single points of failure indirectly reduce impact of resource exhaustion.
Hardened configuration baselines can include resource quotas and limits that constrain consumption.
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.
Resource-utilization monitoring and alerting on bottlenecks or overloads limits the impact of denial-of-service or resource-exhaustion attacks.
By continuously monitoring utilization, stress-testing peak loads, and maintaining documented plans to scale or throttle resources, the control directly limits an attacker’s ability to drive a system into uncontrolled resource exhaustion.
Pre-agreed severity-based prioritization and resource allocation during incident triage reduce the likelihood that an attacker-induced resource exhaustion will overwhelm the organization before corrective action is taken.
Business-continuity plans that include resource-management controls reduce the likelihood that an attacker can trigger uncontrolled resource consumption by forcing the system into a degraded or fallback state.
Defining RTOs and capacity requirements for ICT services during business-impact analysis forces organizations to provision sufficient resources and throttling mechanisms, reducing the likelihood that an attacker can induce denial-of-service through uncontrolled resource consumption.
Early notification of anomalous resource consumption or system malfunctions enables throttling or isolation before availability is lost.