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

Comparison Overview

Medtronic JapanMedtronic Japan
VS
Olympus CorporationOlympus Corporation
Medtronic Japan

Medtronic Japan

港区, JP

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile

私たちは世界中の患者さんの生活を向上させるため、 心臓ペースメーカ、手術支援ロボットシステム、カプセル内視鏡など、 ヘルスケアテクノロジーの開発に力を入れています。 「1秒に2人」 私たちの製品、サービス、そしてソリューションによって、 年間7,200万人の患者さんが、 世界のどこかで意義のある生活を取り戻しており、 これは1秒に2人の患者さんの健康回復に貢献していることになります。 日本のメドトロニックは ・日本メドトロニック株式会社 ・メドトロニックソファモアダネック株式会社 ・コヴィディエンジャパン株式会社 の3法人で構...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Olympus Corporation

Olympus Corporation

Nishi-shinjuku 2-3-1 Shinjuku Monolith, Shinjuku-ku, JP

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

Olympus is passionate about creating customer-driven solutions for the medical industry. For more than 100 years, Olympus has focused on making people’s lives healthier, safer and more fulfilling by helping detect, prevent, and treat disease, furthering scientific resea...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:13,565
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Medtronic Japan

Medtronic Japan

-
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
Olympus Corporation

Olympus Corporation

-
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 Medtronic Japan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Olympus Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Medtronic Japan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Medtronic Japan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Olympus Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Olympus Corporation 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...
Medtronic Japan

Medtronic Japan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Olympus Corporation

Olympus Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8