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

Comparison Overview

Johnson & Johnson MedTechJohnson & Johnson MedTech
VS
Sharp HealthCareSharp HealthCare
Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

1 Johnson and Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, US, 08901

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
811/1000Good

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 soluti...

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
Sharp HealthCare

Sharp HealthCare

8695 Spectrum Center Blvd., San Diego, 92123, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
742/1000Moderate

Sharp HealthCare is a not-for-profit health care system based in San Diego, California, with four acute care hospitals, three specialty hospitals, three medical groups and a health plan. We provide medical services in virtually all fields of medicine, including primary ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:11,373
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

-
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
Sharp HealthCare

Sharp HealthCare

-
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 Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Sharp HealthCare in 2026.

Incidents

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

Johnson & Johnson MedTech 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 - Sharp HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sharp HealthCare 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...
Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sharp HealthCare

Sharp HealthCare

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SHA557072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
SHA1038072825

FAQ

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