Philips e-Alert Unit (non-medical device), Version R2.1 and prior. The Philips e-Alert contains a banner disclosure vulnerability that could allow attackers to obtain extraneous product information, such as OS and software components, via the HTTP response header that is normally not available to the attacker, but might be useful information in an attack.
Philips e-Alert Unit (non-medical device), Version R2.1 and prior. The software transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors. The Philips e-Alert communication channel is not encrypted which could therefore lead to disclosure of personal contact information and application login credentials from within the same subnet.
In Philips' IntelliSpace Cardiovascular (ISCV) products (ISCV Version 2.x or prior and Xcelera Version 4.1 or prior), an attacker with escalated privileges could access folders which contain executables where authenticated users have write permissions, and could then execute arbitrary code with local administrative permissions.
In Philips' IntelliSpace Cardiovascular (ISCV) products (ISCV Version 3.1 or prior and Xcelera Version 4.1 or prior), an unquoted search path or element vulnerability has been identified, which may allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code and escalate their level of privileges.
In Philips PageWriter TC10, TC20, TC30, TC50, TC70 Cardiographs, all versions prior to May 2018, the PageWriter device does not sanitize data entered by user. This can lead to buffer overflow or format string vulnerabilities.
In Philips PageWriter TC10, TC20, TC30, TC50, TC70 Cardiographs, all versions prior to May 2018, an attacker with both the superuser password and physical access can enter the superuser password that can be used to access and modify all settings on the device, as well as allow the user to reset existing passwords.
Applications developed using the Portrait Display SDK, versions 2.30 through 2.34, default to insecure configurations which allow arbitrary code execution. A number of applications developed using the Portrait Displays SDK do not use secure permissions when running. These applications run the component pdiservice.exe with NT AUTHORITY/SYSTEM permissions. This component is also read/writable by all Authenticated Users. This allows local authenticated attackers to run arbitrary code with SYSTEM privileges. The following applications have been identified by Portrait Displays as affected: Fujitsu DisplayView Click: Version 6.0 and 6.01. The issue was fixed in Version 6.3. Fujitsu DisplayView Click Suite: Version 5. The issue is addressed by patch in Version 5.9. HP Display Assistant: Version 2.1. The issue was fixed in Version 2.11. HP My Display: Version 2.0. The issue was fixed in Version 2.1. Philips Smart Control Premium: Versions 2.23, 2.25. The issue was fixed in Version 2.26.
IntelliVue Patient Monitors MP Series (including MP2/X2/MP30/MP50/MP70/NP90/MX700/800) Rev B-M, IntelliVue Patient Monitors MX (MX400-550) Rev J-M and (X3/MX100 for Rev M only), and Avalon Fetal/Maternal Monitors FM20/FM30/FM40/FM50 with software Revisions F.0, G.0 and J.3 have a vulnerability that allows an unauthenticated attacker to access memory ("write-what-where") from an attacker-chosen device address within the same subnet.
IntelliVue Patient Monitors MP Series (including MP2/X2/MP30/MP50/MP70/NP90/MX700/800) Rev B-M, IntelliVue Patient Monitors MX (MX400-550) Rev J-M and (X3/MX100 for Rev M only), and Avalon Fetal/Maternal Monitors FM20/FM30/FM40/FM50 with software Revisions F.0, G.0 and J.3 have a vulnerability that allows an unauthenticated attacker to read memory from an attacker-chosen device address within the same subnet.
IntelliVue Patient Monitors MP Series (including MP2/X2/MP30/MP50/MP70/NP90/MX700/800) Rev B-M, IntelliVue Patient Monitors MX (MX400-550) Rev J-M and (X3/MX100 for Rev M only), and Avalon Fetal/Maternal Monitors FM20/FM30/FM40/FM50 with software Revisions F.0, G.0 and J.3 have a vulnerability that exposes an "echo" service, in which an attacker-sent buffer to an attacker-chosen device address within the same subnet is copied to the stack with no boundary checks, hence resulting in stack overflow.