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

Comparison Overview

CONMED OrthopedicsCONMED Orthopedics
VS
StrykerStryker
CONMED Orthopedics

CONMED Orthopedics

11311 Concept Blvd, Largo, Florida, 33773, US

Last Update: 05/05/2026

View Profile

With multiple manufacturing and design facilities, over 3,500 employees, and worldwide distribution, CONMED strives to improve the quality of healthcare by designing, producing and marketing innovative, high-quality products.

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:25
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
CONMED Orthopedics

CONMED Orthopedics

-
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 CONMED Orthopedics 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 - CONMED Orthopedics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CONMED Orthopedics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
CONMED Orthopedics

CONMED Orthopedics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stryker

Stryker

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97032
SUMMARY

HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97031
SUMMARY

Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97030
SUMMARY

A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96207
SUMMARY

Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94510
SUMMARY

Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
5.3
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9