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

Comparison Overview

Danaher DiagnosticsDanaher Diagnostics
VS
Smith+NephewSmith+Nephew
Danaher Diagnostics

Danaher Diagnostics

N/A

Last Update: 22/02/2026

View Profile

At Danaher, we’re innovating at the speed of life. As the diagnostics businesses of Danaher, we are accelerating the development of cutting-edge diagnostics to solve some of the world’s most pressing health challenges. Across our operating companies and through inno...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:66
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: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smith-nephew.com
790/1000Fair

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 Diagnostics

Danaher Diagnostics

-
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 Diagnostics in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Smith+Nephew in 2026.

Incidents

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

Danaher Diagnostics 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 Diagnostics

Danaher Diagnostics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9