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

Comparison Overview

Omnipod® for HCPsOmnipod® for HCPs
VS
Smith+NephewSmith+Nephew
Omnipod® for HCPs

Omnipod® for HCPs

100 Nagog Park, Acton, 01720, US

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.omnipod.com/hcp
761/1000Fair

Developed by Insulet Corporation, Omnipod 5 helps people navigate the constant complexities of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. It is the first tubeless and waterproof* automated insulin delivery system in the US, in the form of a small, wearable Pod that integrates wit...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

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

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smith-nephew.com
791/1000Fair

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
Omnipod® for HCPs

Omnipod® for HCPs

-
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 Omnipod® for HCPs in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Smith+Nephew in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Omnipod® for HCPs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Omnipod® for HCPs 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...
Omnipod® for HCPs

Omnipod® for HCPs

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Smith+Nephew

Smith+Nephew

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8