Comparison Overview

Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity

VS

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity

undefined, Washington, DC, 20016, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17

Hundreds of organizations across the health care spectrum collaborate with the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to develop and encourage adoption of recommendations and guidance for policy, regulatory and market-driven strategies to facilitate collective mitigation of cybersecurity threats to the sector that affect patient safety, security, and privacy, and consequently, national confidence in the healthcare system.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 17
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

1 Johnson and Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, US, 08901
Last Update: 2025-12-17

At Johnson & Johnson MedTech, we are working to solve the world’s most pressing healthcare challenges through innovations at the intersection of biology and technology. With deep expertise in surgery, orthopaedics, cardiovascular, and vision, we design healthcare solutions that are smarter, less invasive and more personalized. We are developing the next generation of med tech solutions to tackle the most pervasive and complex health challenges for people around the world.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 34,798
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/health-sector-cyber-council.jpeg
Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity
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/johnson-&-johnson-medtech.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson MedTech
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
Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Johnson & Johnson MedTech
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2025.

Incident History — Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Johnson & Johnson MedTech (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson & Johnson MedTech cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/health-sector-cyber-council.jpeg
Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson-medtech.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson MedTech
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Johnson & Johnson MedTech company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Johnson & Johnson MedTech company has not reported any.

In the current year, Johnson & Johnson MedTech company and Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech company nor Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech company nor Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Johnson & Johnson MedTech company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Johnson & Johnson MedTech company employs more people globally than Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Health Sector Coordinating Council - Cybersecurity nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N