Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Next.js: Server-Side Request Forgery in Server Actions on Custom Servers

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2026-64649CWE-918

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it; Cloudflare blocks by default.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
8.3
EPSS
0.5% Top 60%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2026-07-27
Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 14.1.1 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, when a Server Action forwards or redirects a request, an attacker can cause the server to send that… More

Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 14.1.1 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, when a Server Action forwards or redirects a request, an attacker can cause the server to send that outbound request to a malicious host (Server-Side Request Forgery). This requires the attacker's request to control Host-associated headers. In some configurations, it's also possible to obtain internal values that weaken middleware/proxy authorization. Applications that use Server Actions are affected when the incoming host header is not fixed to a trusted value. This typically occurs on custom servers, or on deployments not behind a proxy that pins the host. Managed hosting pins the host upstream and is not affected; next start and standalone output do the same from version 14.2 onward. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-64649: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
High · 8.3 / 10

Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and low impact on integrity.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySerious impact
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack only works under specific conditions, such as a race or a particular setup.
    Present
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.
    Low
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)The component keeps working normally.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2026-07-21
    Cloudflare rule names it
    Earliest entry we can see is an update
  2. 2026-07-27
    CVE published
    CVE List

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed Rules1 quoteBlocks by default

Named by 2026-07-21; the first entry is an update, so the rule may be older.

2026-07-21Updated…930091a3Default: BlockSource
Next.js - SSRF - CVE-2026-64649. Previous action: N/A. New action: Block. This was labeled as Generic Rules - Auth Bypass - 2.
AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.