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

Comparison Overview

Phonak ItaliaPhonak Italia
VS
Dentsply SironaDentsply Sirona
Phonak Italia

Phonak Italia

SONOVA ITALIA SRL, Milano, 20147 , IT

Last Update: 27/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.phonak.com/it
755/1000Fair

Noi di Phonak crediamo che un buon udito sia fondamentale per vivere la vita al meglio. Da oltre 70 anni ci dedichiamo a questa missione sviluppando soluzioni uditive all'avanguardia che cambiano la vita delle persone, permettendogli di esprimere il loro potenziale emot...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Dentsply Sirona

Dentsply Sirona

13320 Ballantyne Corporate Pl, Charlotte, North Carolina, US, 28277

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

A Global Total Solutions Provider Dentsply Sirona is the world’s largest manufacturer of professional dental products and technologies, empowering dental professionals to provide better, safer and faster dental care. Our products and solutions include leading position...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11,199
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Phonak Italia

Phonak Italia

-
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
Dentsply Sirona

Dentsply Sirona

-
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 Device Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Phonak Italia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Device Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Dentsply Sirona in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Phonak Italia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Phonak Italia 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 - Dentsply Sirona (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dentsply Sirona 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...
Phonak Italia

Phonak Italia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Dentsply Sirona

Dentsply Sirona

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2