Comparison Overview

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

VS

Hospital for Special Surgery

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

1 Johnson and Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, US, 08901
Last Update: 2026-01-18

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: 36,750
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Hospital for Special Surgery

535 East 70th Street, New York, 10021, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

HSS is the world’s leading academic medical center focused on musculoskeletal health. At its core is Hospital for Special Surgery, nationally ranked No. 1 in orthopedics (for the 16th consecutive year), No. 3 in rheumatology by U.S. News & World Report (2025-2026), and the best pediatric orthopedic hospital in NY, NJ and CT by U.S. News & World Report “Best Children’s Hospitals” list (2024-2025). In a survey of medical professionals in more than 20 countries by Newsweek, HSS is ranked world #1 in orthopedics for a fifth consecutive year (2025). Founded in 1863, the Hospital has the lowest readmission rates in the nation for orthopedics, and among the lowest infection and complication rates. HSS was the first in New York State to receive Magnet Recognition for Excellence in Nursing Service from the American Nurses Credentialing Center five consecutive times. An affiliate of Weill Cornell Medical College, HSS has a main campus in New York City and facilities in New Jersey, Connecticut and in the Long Island and Westchester County regions of New York State, as well as in Florida.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 16,807
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hospital-for-special-surgery.jpeg
Hospital for Special Surgery
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
Johnson & Johnson MedTech
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Hospital for Special Surgery
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 Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Hospital for Special Surgery in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — Hospital for Special Surgery (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hospital for Special Surgery cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson-medtech.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson MedTech
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hospital-for-special-surgery.jpeg
Hospital for Special Surgery
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Johnson & Johnson MedTech company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Hospital for Special Surgery company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Hospital for Special Surgery company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Johnson & Johnson MedTech company.

In the current year, Hospital for Special Surgery company and Johnson & Johnson MedTech company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Hospital for Special Surgery company nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Hospital for Special Surgery company nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Hospital for Special Surgery company nor Johnson & Johnson MedTech company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech company nor Hospital for Special Surgery company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech nor Hospital for Special Surgery holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Hospital for Special Surgery company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Johnson & Johnson MedTech company.

Johnson & Johnson MedTech company employs more people globally than Hospital for Special Surgery company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech nor Hospital for Special Surgery holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech nor Hospital for Special Surgery holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech nor Hospital for Special Surgery holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech nor Hospital for Special Surgery holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech nor Hospital for Special Surgery holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson MedTech nor Hospital for Special Surgery holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N