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

Comparison Overview

Medline AustraliaMedline Australia
VS
StrykerStryker
Medline Australia

Medline Australia

2 Fairview Place, Marsden Park, NSW, 2765, AU

Last Update: 06/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.medline.com.au
759/1000Fair

We’re a global healthcare company dedicated to being easy to partner with, solving problems, and providing good value. From our purpose-built, 25,000 square metre facility in Marsden Park – in the heart of Sydney’s west – and with several warehouses around Australia, we...

NAICS:339
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:149
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Stryker

Stryker

2825 Airview Boulevard, Kalamazoo, MI, US, 49002

Last Update: 29/05/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.stryker.com
557/1000Very Poor

Stryker is a global leader in medical technologies and, together with our customers, we are driven to make healthcare better. We offer innovative products and services in MedSurg, Neurotechnology and Orthopaedics that help improve patient and healthcare outcomes. Alongs...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:50,225
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
14
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Medline Australia

Medline Australia

-
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
Stryker

Stryker

-
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 Medline Australia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Stryker has 1208.41% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Medline Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Medline Australia 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 - Stryker (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stryker 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...
Medline Australia

Medline Australia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stryker

Stryker

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STR1779337852
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STR1779452900
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DOWSTR1775838732

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3