Prismaflex FirmwareOperating system · Baxter

CVE-2020-12037

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-06-29
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 3.0 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
Baxter PrismaFlex all versions, PrisMax all versions prior to 3.x, The affected devices do not implement data-in-transit encryption (e.g., TLS/SSL) when configured to send treatment data to a PDMS (Patient Data Management System) or an EMR (Electronic Medical Record) system. An attacker could observe sensitive data sent from the device.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

Baxter PrismaFlex and PrisMax medical devices transmit treatment data to PDMS and EMR systems without encryption (no TLS/SSL). Sensitive patient treatment data is sent in plaintext across the network, allowing any attacker with network access to intercept and read confidential medical information.

MitigationEnable TLS/SSL encryption for data-in-transit communications between the device and PDMS/EMR systems, or upgrade PrisMax to version 3.x or later. Implement network segmentation to limit exposure of unencrypted traffic.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
Prismaflex FirmwareOperating system
Affected:all versions
Prismax FirmwareOperating system
Affected:< 3.0

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

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

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify device model and firmware version
    Locate the device label or access the device's administration interface to determine if it is a PrismaFlex or PrisMax unit, and record the installed firmware version.
    Affected if The device is a PrismaFlex (any version) or PrisMax with firmware version below 3.0.
  2. Confirm PDMS/EMR communication is enabled
    Access the device configuration or network settings menu and verify if outbound connections to Patient Data Management System (PDMS) or Electronic Medical Records (EMR) systems are configured and active.
    Affected if The device is configured to send treatment data to external PDMS or EMR systems.
  3. Verify TLS/SSL encryption status for outbound data
    In the device network or communication settings, check whether TLS/SSL or encryption is enabled for data transmissions to PDMS/EMR endpoints. If available, inspect the protocol settings for the data export function.
    Affected if TLS/SSL encryption is disabled or set to 'none' for PDMS/EMR communications, meaning data is transmitted in plaintext.
  4. Inspect network traffic for plaintext data
    Use a network sniffer or capture tool on the network segment connected to the device. Observe outbound traffic destined for PDMS/EMR IP addresses and verify whether the data payload is encrypted (HTTPS, TLS) or clearly readable as plaintext medical data.
    Affected if Unencrypted, plaintext traffic containing patient treatment data is observed flowing from the device to PDMS/EMR systems.

A user is affected if they have a PrismaFlex (any version) or PrisMax (< 3.0) configured to transmit data to PDMS/EMR systems with TLS/SSL encryption disabled, resulting in plaintext patient data on the network.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Upgrade available Upgrade to 3.0 or later
Fixed in 3.0
Interim mitigation

Enable TLS/SSL encryption for data-in-transit communications between the device and PDMS/EMR systems, or upgrade PrisMax to version 3.x or later. Implement network segmentation to limit exposure of unencrypted traffic.

Fix this in Prismaflex Firmware Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
36.0 hours of engineering $6,400
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-12037 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-12037 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data