CVE-2020-16239VulnerabilityPublished 21 Aug 2020Updated 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2020-16239: Philips SureSigns VS4 · CWE-287

Affects Philips SureSigns VS4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.9Medium

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 62% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 21 Aug 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 2026-10-25.

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 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 SureSigns VS4	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European healthcare organizations should implement strict network segmentation to isolate Philips SureSigns VS4 devices from general IT infrastructure and internet-facing networks. Access controls must be enforced rigorously, ensuring that only authorized personnel with verified credentials can interact with these devices. Multi-factor authentication (MFA) should be applied where possible to increase the difficulty of privilege escalation. Continuous monitoring and logging of device access and network traffic can help detect anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Since no official patches are currently available, organizations should engage with Philips for firmware updates or security advisories and apply any recommended fixes promptly. Additionally, conducting regular vulnerability assessments and penetration testing focused on medical device environments will help identify and remediate weaknesses. Training clinical and IT staff on cybersecurity best practices, especially regarding credential management and phishing awareness, will reduce the risk of initial privilege compromise. Finally, organizations should review and update incident response plans to include scenarios involving medical device compromise.

Description

When an actor claims to have a given identity, Philips SureSigns VS4, A.07.107 and prior does not prove or insufficiently proves the claim is correct.

Impact

For European healthcare organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to patient data confidentiality. Philips SureSigns VS4 devices are used in hospitals and clinics to monitor patient vital signs continuously. Exploitation could allow attackers to intercept or access sensitive health information, violating GDPR regulations and potentially leading to legal and reputational consequences. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect device availability or data integrity, unauthorized access to patient data can disrupt clinical workflows and trust in medical devices. Furthermore, healthcare providers in Europe are increasingly targeted by cybercriminals due to the high value of medical data and critical nature of healthcare services. The network-based attack vector increases the risk, especially in environments where medical devices are connected to hospital networks without sufficient segmentation or monitoring. The requirement for high privileges suggests that attackers would need to compromise internal systems or credentials first, but once achieved, the vulnerability could facilitate lateral movement or data exfiltration within healthcare networks.

CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (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, 01:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats