Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 9.5.0 and prior to versions 15.5.13 and 16.1.7, when Next.js rewrites proxy traffic to an external backend, a crafted DELETE/OPTIONS request using Transfer-Encoding: chunked could trigger request boundary disagreement between the proxy and backend. This could allow request smuggling through rewritten routes. An attacker could smuggle a second request to unintended backend routes (for example, internal/admin endpoints), bypassing assumptions that only the configured rewrite destination/path is reachable. This does not impact applications hosted on providers that handle rewrites at the CDN level, such as Vercel. The vulnerability originated in an upstream library vendored by Next.js. It is fixed in Next.js 15.5.13 and 16.1.7 by updating that dependency’s behavior so content-length: 0 is added only when both content-length and transfer-encoding are absent, and transfer-encoding is no longer removed in that code path. If upgrading is not immediately possible, block chunked DELETE/OPTIONS requests on rewritten routes at the edge/proxy, and/or enforce authentication/authorization on backend routes.
Weakness
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
Extended Description
HTTP requests or responses (“messages”) can be malformed or unexpected in ways that cause web servers or clients to interpret the messages in different ways than intermediary HTTP agents such as load balancers, reverse proxies, web caching proxies, application firewalls, etc. For example, an adversary may be able to add duplicate or different header fields that a client or server might interpret as one set of messages, whereas the intermediary might interpret the same sequence of bytes as a different set of messages. For example, discrepancies can arise in how to handle duplicate headers like two Transfer-encoding (TE) or two Content-length (CL), or the malicious HTTP message will have different headers for TE and CL. The inconsistent parsing and interpretation of messages can allow the adversary to “smuggle” a message to the client/server without the intermediary being aware of it. This weakness is usually the result of the usage of outdated or incompatible HTTP protocol versions in the HTTP agents.