VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2020Updated 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2020-14525: Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform · CWE-83

Affects Philips Clinical Collaboration PlatformSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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

2) Implement strict input validation and output encoding on all user-controllable inputs within the Clinical Collaboration Platform, ensuring that any HTML or script content is properly sanitized to prevent script injection. 3) Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block XSS payloads targeting the platform. 4) Restrict network access to the platform to trusted users and networks only, minimizing the attack surface for adjacent network attacks. 5) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on web interface vulnerabilities. 6) Educate users about the risks of phishing and suspicious links, as XSS can be leveraged for social engineering. 7) Monitor logs and alerts for unusual activity that could indicate exploitation attempts. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on proactive network segmentation, user education, and layered defenses tailored to the healthcare environment.

Description

Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform, Versions 12.2.1 and prior, does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output used as a webpage that is served to other users.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly healthcare providers using the Philips Clinical Collaboration Platform, this vulnerability poses a risk to the confidentiality of sensitive clinical and patient data. Although the severity is low, the exposure of protected health information (PHI) can have significant regulatory and reputational consequences under the GDPR and other healthcare data protection laws. The vulnerability could be exploited by insiders or network-adjacent attackers to execute XSS attacks that may lead to session hijacking or data leakage. This could undermine trust in clinical collaboration tools and disrupt workflows if exploited. While the impact on system integrity and availability is negligible, the confidentiality breach potential is critical in healthcare contexts where data privacy is paramount. European healthcare institutions must consider this vulnerability seriously due to the sensitive nature of the data handled and the strict compliance requirements.

CWE-83Improper Neutralization of Script in Attributes in a Web Page (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes "javascript:" or other URIs from dangerous attributes within tags, such as onmouseover, onload, onerror, or style.
Implementation
Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (allowlist) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be neutralized, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including tag attributes, hidden fields, cookies,…
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
Implementation
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Targeting HTML Attributes (opens in a new tab)
XSS Targeting URI Placeholders (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (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, 00:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-83

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats