CVE-2026-19594
HIGHInsufficient input sanitization in Snowflake Python API (`snowflake.core`) versions prior to 1.13.0 allowed confused-deputy privilege escalation through two related weaknesses: path traversal (CWE-22) via unencoded `..` identifier path segments, and HTTP parameter pollution (CWE-141) via unencoded...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
What systems are affected?
| Package | Ecosystem | Vulnerable Range | Patched |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snowflake Python APIs | — | — | No patch |
Do you use Snowflake Python APIs? You're affected.
How severe is it?
What is the attack surface?
What should I do?
No patch available
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-19594?
Insufficient input sanitization in Snowflake Python API (`snowflake.core`) versions prior to 1.13.0 allowed confused-deputy privilege escalation through two related weaknesses: path traversal (CWE-22) via unencoded `..` identifier path segments, and HTTP parameter pollution (CWE-141) via unencoded `&`/`#`/`=` characters in query string values. An attacker with access to a downstream application built on snowflake.core could exploit the path traversal by supplying `..` as an object name, causing `snowflake.core` to issue REST requests against a parent resource or exploit the parameter pollution by injecting `&`/`#`/`=` into a free-form name field to override constraints on swap, clone, or rename operations — all executed under the application's privileged session. Successful exploitation requires the attacker to control an identifier or object-name string in an application built on snowflake.core that passes it to `snowflake.core` under a higher-privileged Snowflake session (e.g., an EXECUTE AS OWNER stored procedure, Streamlit app, or Native App). The fix is available in Snowflake Python API version 1.13.0, which also addresses several additional security findings. Users must manually upgrade.
Is CVE-2026-19594 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-19594 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-19594?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-19594?
CVE-2026-19594 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (HIGH).
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
Insufficient input sanitization in Snowflake Python API (`snowflake.core`) versions prior to 1.13.0 allowed confused-deputy privilege escalation through two related weaknesses: path traversal (CWE-22) via unencoded `..` identifier path segments, and HTTP parameter pollution (CWE-141) via unencoded `&`/`#`/`=` characters in query string values. An attacker with access to a downstream application built on snowflake.core could exploit the path traversal by supplying `..` as an object name, causing `snowflake.core` to issue REST requests against a parent resource or exploit the parameter pollution by injecting `&`/`#`/`=` into a free-form name field to override constraints on swap, clone, or rename operations — all executed under the application's privileged session. Successful exploitation requires the attacker to control an identifier or object-name string in an application built on snowflake.core that passes it to `snowflake.core` under a higher-privileged Snowflake session (e.g., an EXECUTE AS OWNER stored procedure, Streamlit app, or Native App). The fix is available in Snowflake Python API version 1.13.0, which also addresses several additional security findings. Users must manually upgrade.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-141 Improper Neutralization of Parameter/Argument Delimiters CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') CWE-141 — Improper Neutralization of Parameter/Argument Delimiters: The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as parameter or argument delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
- Developers should anticipate that parameter/argument delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
- [Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
CVSS Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H