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

Comparison Overview

iRhythm Technologies, Inc.iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
VS
Boston ScientificBoston Scientific
iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

650 Townsend St., Ste. 500, San Francisco, 94103, US

Last Update: 22/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.irhythmtech.com
676/1000Weak

iRhythm is a leading digital health care company that creates trusted solutions that detect, predict, and prevent disease. Combining wearable biosensors and cloud-based data analytics with powerful proprietary algorithms, iRhythm distills data from millions of heartbeat...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:1,803
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Boston Scientific

Boston Scientific

100 Boston Scientific Way, Marlborough, 01752, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
790/1000Fair

Boston Scientific transforms lives through innovative medical technologies that improve the health of patients around the world. As a global medical technology leader for more than 40 years, we advance science for life by providing a broad range of high-performance solu...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:52,506
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

-
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
Boston Scientific

Boston Scientific

-
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)

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. has 42.86% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Boston Scientific has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Boston Scientific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boston Scientific 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...
iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FORSHATANMICJAMIRHTEX1782147825
🔒 Incident : Breach
IRH1781563219
Boston Scientific

Boston Scientific

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DIS1777998353
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
BOS5595255110425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA