VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2020Updated 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2020-14506: Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform · Cross-Site Request Forgery

Affects Philips Clinical Collaboration PlatformSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.4 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.4Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Sep 2020
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European healthcare organizations should ensure that the Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform is updated to the latest version where this issue is addressed, even though no direct patch links are provided in the data. If an official patch is unavailable, organizations should implement compensating controls such as enforcing strict access controls and monitoring for unusual activities by privileged users. Network segmentation should be applied to restrict local access to the platform only to trusted personnel and systems. Additionally, implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) with CSRF protections and validating all incoming requests for proper tokens can help reduce risk. Regular audits and user privilege reviews are essential to minimize the number of users with high privileges. Finally, educating staff about the risks of CSRF and ensuring secure coding practices in any custom integrations with the platform can further reduce exposure.

Description

Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform, Versions 12.2.1 and prior. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties required to process the data safely and correctly.

Impact

For European organizations using the Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform, this vulnerability could pose a risk primarily in environments where the platform is deployed locally and accessed by users with high privileges. Given the nature of the platform—used for clinical collaboration and likely handling sensitive patient data—any compromise of confidentiality or integrity, even if limited, could have regulatory and operational consequences under GDPR and healthcare compliance frameworks. However, the low CVSS score and requirement for local access and high privileges reduce the likelihood of widespread exploitation. The absence of user interaction and the need for high privileges mean that attackers would likely need to already have significant access to the system, limiting the threat to insider threats or attackers who have already breached perimeter defenses. The potential impact includes unauthorized disclosure or modification of clinical data, which could affect patient care decisions and trust in the healthcare provider's systems.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 02:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats