Skip to content

GHSA-3x4c-7xq6-9pq8 CVE-2026-27980

Next.js: Unbounded next/image disk cache growth can exhaust storage

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.71%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 53.53% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
16.1.7
Upgrade next to this version or later

Description

Summary

The default Next.js image optimization disk cache (/_next/image) did not have a configurable upper bound, allowing unbounded cache growth.

Impact

An attacker could generate many unique image-optimization variants and exhaust disk space, causing denial of service. Note that this does not impact platforms that have their own image optimization capabilities, such as Vercel.

Patches

Fixed by adding an LRU-backed disk cache with images.maximumDiskCacheSize, including eviction of least-recently-used entries when the limit is exceeded. Setting maximumDiskCacheSize: 0 disables disk caching.

Workarounds

If upgrade is not immediately possible:

  • Periodically clean .next/cache/images.
  • Reduce variant cardinality (e.g., tighten values for images.localPatterns, images.remotePatterns, and images.qualities)

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
next
>= 16.0.0-beta.0, < 16.1.7
16.1.7
next
>= 10.0.0, < 15.5.14
15.5.14

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

next npm → 16.1.7

npm
npm install next@16.1.7
yarn
yarn add next@16.1.7
pnpm
pnpm add next@16.1.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • 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. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • 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. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-673q-mjm6-r5xr
Next.js: Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution in `use cache` functions returning typed arrays
Critical Also affects next
GHSA-2464-fhr4-w9xw
Next.js: Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution in Image Optimization API when SVG files are used
Critical Also affects next
GHSA-p3m5-59mp-jv5r
Next.js: Denial of Service in App Router using Server Actions
High Also affects next
GHSA-3w37-wq28-93x7
Next.js: Pending `use cache` fill can leak Draft Mode content into regular responses and persisted pages
Medium Also affects next
GHSA-4jqv-mc3x-m676
Next.js has cache poisoning of SSG and ISR pages in self-hosted applications
Medium Also affects next
GHSA-39w2-rjm5-chcv
Next.js has information disclosure in development server's Model Context Protocol endpoint
Medium Also affects next
GHSA-f87g-xv8r-7p7x
Next.js has information disclosure in App Router metadata image routes via dynamicParams bypass
Medium Also affects next
GHSA-mcj8-r9mp-w47p
Next.js has cache poisoning in SSG/ISR rendering that leads to cross-user content substitution and persistent denial of service
Medium Also affects next
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor