CVE-2025-3426
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 · uneditedWe observed that Intellispace Portal binaries doesn’t have any protection mechanisms to prevent reverse engineering. Specifically, the app’s code is not obfuscated, and no measures are in place to protect against decompilation, disassembly, or debugging. As a result, attackers can reverse-engineer the application to gain insights into its internal workings, which can potentially lead to the discovery of sensitive information, business logic flaws, and other vulnerabilities. Utilizing this flaw, the attacker was able to identify the Hardcoded credentials from PortalUsersDatabase.dll, which contains .NET remoting definition. Inside the namespace PortalUsersDatabase, the class Users contains the functions CreateAdmin and CreateService that are used to initialize accounts in the Portal service. Both CreateAdmin and CreateService functions contain a hardcoded encrypted password along with its respective salt that are set with the function SetInitialPasswordAndSalt. This issue affects IntelliSpace Portal: 12 and prior; Advanced Visualization Workspace: 15.
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 confidenceThe IntelliSpace Portal application lacks code obfuscation and protection mechanisms, allowing attackers to reverse-engineer the .NET application. Through decompilation, attackers discovered hardcoded encrypted passwords with salts in PortalUsersDatabase.dll within the Users class (CreateAdmin/CreateService functions), exposing credentials that could be used for unauthorized access.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- Authentication
- Y
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- P
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:P/AU:Y/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Green
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the PortalUsersDatabase.dll fileSearch the IntelliSpace Portal installation directory for the file PortalUsersDatabase.dll. Common paths include C:\Program Files\Philips\IntelliSpace Portal or similar installation folders.Affected if The DLL file exists in the installation directory, indicating the vulnerable component is present.
-
Inspect the Users class for CreateAdmin/CreateService functionsUse a .NET decompiler (such as ILSpy, dotPeek, or dnSpy) to open PortalUsersDatabase.dll and navigate to the Users class. Look for methods named CreateAdmin and CreateService.Affected if These methods exist and contain hardcoded credential data, exposing the vulnerability.
-
Check for hardcoded encrypted passwordsWithin the decompiled Users class, search for string literals or byte arrays that appear to be encrypted passwords. Look for references to 'password', 'pwd', or encrypted byte sequences in CreateAdmin/CreateService functions.Affected if Hardcoded encrypted password values are found embedded in the code.
-
Check for hardcoded salt valuesIn the same decompiled code, look for salt values (byte arrays or string literals) used in password encryption. Search for 'salt' references or examine the cryptographic initialization in the credential handling code.Affected if Salt values are hardcoded in the source, making the encrypted passwords reversible.
-
Verify code obfuscation is not appliedAttempt to read the decompiled code directly. If class names, method names, and logic are clearly readable without obfuscation (no random character names, no encrypted strings), the code lacks obfuscation protection.Affected if The code is fully readable and not obfuscated, allowing straightforward reverse engineering.
If PortalUsersDatabase.dll contains hardcoded encrypted passwords and salts in the Users class CreateAdmin/CreateService functions and the code is readable without obfuscation, the environment is affected by CVE-2025-3426.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataRemove hardcoded credentials from the codebase and implement secure credential storage/management. Additionally, apply code obfuscation and anti-tampering protections to prevent future reverse engineering attacks.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-3426 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-3426 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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