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

Comparison Overview

Danaher CorporationDanaher Corporation
VS
Smith+NephewSmith+Nephew
Danaher Corporation

Danaher Corporation

2200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, 20037, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.danaher.com
834/1000Good

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 solution...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:50,163
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

5 Hatters Lane, Watford, Hertfordshire, GB, WD18 8YE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smith-nephew.com
793/1000Fair

Smith+Nephew is a global medical technology company. We design and manufacture technology that takes the limits off living. We support healthcare professionals to return their patients to health and mobility, helping them to perform at their fullest potential. From our...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:18,909
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Danaher Corporation

Danaher Corporation

-
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
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

-
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 Danaher Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Smith+Nephew in 2026.

Incidents

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

Danaher Corporation 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 - Smith+Nephew (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Smith+Nephew cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Danaher Corporation

Danaher Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA