Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-46330

Snowflake Connector For C\/C\+\+ 0.5.0 – 2.2.0

Published
29 April 2025
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 3.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0016 6th percentile
Risk Priority 28 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-46330 is a low-severity Improper Following of Specification by Caller (CWE-573) vulnerability in Snowflake Connector For C\/C\+\+. Its CVSS base score is 3.3 (Low).

Operationally, ranked at the 6th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

libsnowflakeclient is the Snowflake Connector for C/C++. Versions starting from 0.5.0 to before 2.2.0, incorrectly treat malformed requests that caused the HTTP response status code 400, as able to be retried. This could hang the application until SF_CON_MAX_RETRY requests were…

more

sent. This issue has been patched in version 2.2.0.

CWE(s)
CWE-573NVD-CWE-noinfo

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-46329Same product: Snowflake Connector For C\/C\+\+
CVE-2023-34233Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2026-13752Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2023-51662Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2025-46327Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2026-13750Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2026-13751Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2024-49750Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2025-24794Same vendor: Snowflake
CVE-2025-24793Same vendor: Snowflake

Affected Assets

snowflake
connector for c\/c\+\+
0.5.0 — 2.2.0

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where callers fail to follow required specifications or APIs.

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools partial match

Requiring a documented development process and standards reduces the chance that callers will deviate from language, framework, or protocol specifications.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce correct adherence to language, framework, protocol and platform specifications during implementation.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing can detect specification non-compliance but does not itself prevent the weakness.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates adherence to language, framework and protocol specifications, directly reducing improper caller behavior.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements explicitly capture specification compliance obligations that callers must follow.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles include specification adherence as a design constraint.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards enforce correct use of APIs, protocols and language features, mitigating caller specification violations.

A.8.32 Change management partial match
prevents

Change management can catch specification drift during updates but is not a primary mitigation.

References