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

Comparison Overview

LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PALAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA
VS
Smith+NephewSmith+Nephew
LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA

LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA

N/A

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://lafayettepaincare.net
765/1000Fair

Trying to manage pain and return to the activities you love? We’re a pain care center providing lasting solutions—not just medication— to those experiencing acute or chronic pain.

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:3
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

5 Hatters Lane, Watford, Hertfordshire, GB, WD18 8YE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smith-nephew.com
793/1000Fair

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
LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA

LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA

-
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 LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Smith+Nephew in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA

LAFAYETTE PAIN CARE, PA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LAF17623522
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57980
SUMMARY

Authentication bypass using an alternate path or channel in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56741
SUMMARY

JLine is a Java library for handling console input. Prior to 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1, the JLine3 Telnet server remote-telnet module does not apply an upper bound to terminal dimensions received via the Telnet NAWS option, and TelnetIO.handleNAWS() in TelnetIO.java:856-879 reads client-supplied width and height as 16-bit unsigned integers and passes values such as 65535x65535 to setTerminalGeometry(), allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly alternate values and trigger continuous expensive rendering work that causes CPU exhaustion and denial of service. This issue is fixed in versions 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56740
SUMMARY

JLine is a Java library for handling console input. Prior to 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1, the JLine3 Telnet server remote-telnet module does not limit the number of environment variables a client may inject via the Telnet NEW-ENVIRON option, and TelnetIO.readNEVariables() in TelnetIO.java:1127-1180 stores each variable pair in a HashMap held by ConnectionData, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to flood unique variable pairs before the terminating IAC SE byte and exhaust JVM heap memory with an OutOfMemoryError. This issue is fixed in versions 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56171
SUMMARY

Exposure of private personal information to an unauthorized actor in Windows RDP allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54335
SUMMARY

Feathersjs is a framework for creating web APIs and real-time applications with TypeScript or JavaScript. In 5.0.44 and earlier, the _.merge(target, source) utility exported by @feathersjs/commons recursively merges source into target by iterating Object.keys(source). When source was produced by JSON.parse and contains a __proto__, constructor, or prototype key, that key is returned as an own-enumerable property; the recursive merge then resolves target['__proto__'] to Object.prototype and writes attacker-supplied properties onto it, polluting the prototype for all plain objects in the process for the lifetime of the Node process. This issue is fixed in version 5.0.45.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2