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

Comparison Overview

Trauson Medical InstrumentsTrauson Medical Instruments
VS
StrykerStryker
Trauson Medical Instruments

Trauson Medical Instruments

Changzhou, CN

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.trauson.com
760/1000Fair

Trauson, as a Stryker branch company, is located in Wujing High-tech Industrial Zone, Changzhou, Jiangsu. Trauson was established in 1986, is one of the pioneering enterprises in China’s orthopaedic industry, and one of the leading manufacturers of trauma products and ...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:167
Subsidiaries:39
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
Trauson Medical Instruments

Trauson Medical Instruments

-
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 Trauson Medical Instruments in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Stryker has 1196.3% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Trauson Medical Instruments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Trauson Medical Instruments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Trauson Medical Instruments

Trauson Medical Instruments

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stryker

Stryker

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
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-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/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