Skip to content

GHSA-mq59-m269-xvcx CVE-2026-27978

Next.js: null origin can bypass Server Actions CSRF checks

Medium npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.21%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 10.94% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
16.1.7
Upgrade next to this version or later

Description

Summary

origin: null was treated as a "missing" origin during Server Action CSRF validation. As a result, requests from opaque contexts (such as sandboxed iframes) could bypass origin verification instead of being validated as cross-origin requests.

Impact

An attacker could induce a victim browser to submit Server Actions from a sandboxed context, potentially executing state-changing actions with victim credentials (CSRF).

Patches

Fixed by treating 'null' as an explicit origin value and enforcing host/origin checks unless 'null' is explicitly allowlisted in experimental.serverActions.allowedOrigins.

Workarounds

If upgrade is not immediately possible:

  • Add CSRF tokens for sensitive Server Actions.
  • Prefer SameSite=Strict on sensitive auth cookies.
  • Do not allow 'null' in serverActions.allowedOrigins unless intentionally required and additionally protected.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
next
>= 16.0.1, < 16.1.7
16.1.7

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:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

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