Comparison Overview

Danaher Corporation

VS

Olympus Corporation

Danaher Corporation

2200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20037, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.danaher.com

Danaher is a leading global life sciences and diagnostics innovator, committed to accelerating the power of science and technology to improve human health. We partner with customers across the globe to help them solve their most complex challenges, architecting solutions that bring the power of science to life. Our global teams are pioneering what’s next across Life Sciences, Diagnostics, Biotechnology and beyond. For more information, visit www.danaher.com.

NAICS: 3391
NAICS Definition: Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees: 53,849
Subsidiaries: 43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Olympus Corporation

Nishi-shinjuku 2-3-1 Shinjuku Monolith, None, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, JP, None
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://www.olympus-global.com/

Olympus is passionate about creating customer-driven solutions for the medical industry. For more than 100 years, Olympus has focused on making people’s lives healthier, safer and more fulfilling by helping detect, prevent, and treat disease, furthering scientific research, and ensuring public safety. Olympus is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, with more than 31,000 employees worldwide in nearly 40 countries and regions.

NAICS: 3391
NAICS Definition: Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees: 10,074
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/danaher.jpeg
Danaher Corporation
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/olympus-corp.jpeg
Olympus Corporation
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Danaher Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Olympus Corporation
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Danaher Corporation in 2025.

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Olympus Corporation in 2025.

Incident History — Danaher Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Danaher Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Olympus Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Olympus Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/danaher.jpeg
Danaher Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/olympus-corp.jpeg
Olympus Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Danaher Corporation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Olympus Corporation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Olympus Corporation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Danaher Corporation company.

In the current year, Olympus Corporation company and Danaher Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Olympus Corporation company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Olympus Corporation company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Olympus Corporation company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Danaher Corporation company nor Olympus Corporation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Danaher Corporation company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Olympus Corporation company.

Danaher Corporation company employs more people globally than Olympus Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Medical Equipment Manufacturing.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References