CVE-2020-27298VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jan 2021Updated 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2020-27298: Philips Interventional Workspot · OS Command Injection

Affects Philips Interventional WorkspotSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 59% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Jan 2021
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

AI-suggested

1. Network Segmentation: Restrict access to Philips Interventional Workspot systems to trusted, isolated network segments. Limit adjacent network access to only authorized devices and personnel to reduce the attack surface. 2. Access Controls: Implement strict access control policies and monitoring on systems hosting the affected software. Use network-level authentication and device whitelisting where possible. 3. Input Validation Monitoring: Although patching is not currently available, monitor logs and system behavior for unusual command executions or anomalies that could indicate attempted injection. 4. Vendor Engagement: Engage with Philips support to obtain any available patches, updates, or recommended mitigations. Stay informed of any new advisories or firmware/software updates addressing this vulnerability. 5. Incident Response Preparedness: Develop and test incident response plans specific to potential denial of service or system disruption scenarios involving interventional cardiology systems. 6. System Hardening: Where feasible, apply OS-level hardening measures such as disabling unnecessary command interpreters or restricting execution privileges for the affected software processes. 7. Network Intrusion Detection: Deploy and tune IDS/IPS solutions to detect suspicious command injection patterns or anomalous traffic targeting these systems. 8. Backup and Recovery: Ensure robust backup procedures for critical system configurations and data to enable rapid recovery in case of disruption.

Description

Philips Interventional Workspot (Release 1.3.2, 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.5), Coronary Tools/Dynamic Coronary Roadmap/Stentboost Live (Release 1.0), ViewForum (Release 6.3V1L10). The software constructs all or part of an OS command using externally influenced input from an upstream component but does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when sent to a downstream component.

Impact

For European healthcare organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the availability of critical medical imaging and interventional cardiology systems. Philips Interventional Workspot and associated products are widely used in hospitals and clinics across Europe for guiding minimally invasive cardiovascular procedures. Disruption or denial of service caused by exploitation of this OS command injection could delay urgent medical interventions, impacting patient safety and care quality. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or integrity, the loss of availability in a clinical setting can have severe consequences. Additionally, healthcare providers are subject to strict regulatory requirements (e.g., GDPR, NIS Directive) mandating the protection of critical infrastructure and continuity of care. An attack exploiting this vulnerability could lead to regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, and potential legal liabilities. The medium CVSS score reflects the limited attack surface (adjacent network access required) but the critical nature of the affected systems elevates the operational impact. European healthcare institutions must consider this vulnerability in their risk assessments and incident response planning, especially given the lack of known exploits but the potential for targeted attacks against healthcare infrastructure.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 02:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats