Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

3Shape Iberia3Shape Iberia
VS
StrykerStryker
3Shape Iberia

3Shape Iberia

Calle del Acanto, 22, Madrid, 28045, ES

Last Update: 29/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.3shape.com/es
760/1000Fair

En Junio de 2017 se abren las instalaciones de 3Shape Iberia para dar servicio a los mercados de España y Portugal. 3Shape desarrolla escáneres 3D y soluciones de software CAD/CAM para los sectores dental y de audio. Nuestra tecnología está cambiando la forma en que l...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Stryker

Stryker

2825 Airview Boulevard, Kalamazoo, 49002, US

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.stryker.com
494/1000Critical

Stryker is a global leader in medical technologies and, together with our customers, we are driven to make healthcare better. We offer innovative products and services in MedSurg, Neurotechnology and Orthopaedics that help improve patient and healthcare outcomes. Alongs...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:51,473
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
17
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
3Shape Iberia

3Shape Iberia

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Stryker

Stryker

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 3Shape Iberia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Stryker has 1583.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - 3Shape Iberia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

3Shape Iberia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Stryker (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stryker cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
3Shape Iberia

3Shape Iberia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stryker

Stryker

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STR1787430281
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STR1783982145
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STR1779337852

FAQ

Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between 3Shape Iberia company and Stryker company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between 3Shape Iberia and Stryker, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between 3Shape Iberia and Stryker, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - 3Shape Iberia or Stryker ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 3Shape Iberia or Stryker ?
Between 3Shape Iberia and Stryker, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between 3Shape Iberia and Stryker, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA