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

Comparison Overview

Stryker Smart CareStryker Smart Care
VS
Olympus CorporationOlympus Corporation
Stryker Smart Care

Stryker Smart Care

N/A

Last Update: 11/03/2026

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

Healthcare is at a pivotal moment. Fragmented systems, clinician burnout and inefficient workflows challenge modern care delivery. At Stryker, Smart Care is your partner in digital transformation. When people, data and devices work together, care stands apart. Whateve...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:25
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: 01/04/2026

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
Stryker Smart Care

Stryker Smart Care

-
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 Stryker Smart Care in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Olympus Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Stryker Smart Care (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stryker Smart Care 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...
Stryker Smart Care

Stryker Smart Care

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Olympus Corporation

Olympus Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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