Comparison Overview

Danaher Corporation

VS

Olympus Corporation

Danaher Corporation

2200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, 20037, US
Last Update: 2026-04-04
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.danaher.com

Danaher is a leading global life sciences and diagnostics innovator, committed to accelerating the power of science and technology to improve human health. We partner with customers across the globe to help them solve their most complex challenges, architecting solutions that bring the power of science to life. Our global teams are pioneering what’s next across Life Sciences, Diagnostics, Biotechnology and beyond. For more information, visit www.danaher.com.

NAICS: 3391
NAICS Definition: Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees: 50,163
Subsidiaries: 43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Olympus Corporation

Nishi-shinjuku 2-3-1 Shinjuku Monolith, Shinjuku-ku, JP
Last Update: 2026-04-01
Between 750 and 799
https://www.olympus-global.com/

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 research, and ensuring public safety. Olympus is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, with more than 31,000 employees worldwide in nearly 40 countries and regions.

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 Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/danaher.jpeg
Danaher Corporation
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/olympus-corp.jpeg
Olympus Corporation
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Danaher Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Olympus Corporation
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Danaher Corporation in 2026.

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Olympus Corporation in 2026.

Incident History — Danaher Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Danaher Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Olympus Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/danaher.jpeg
Danaher Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/olympus-corp.jpeg
Olympus Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Danaher Corporation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Olympus Corporation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Olympus Corporation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Danaher Corporation company.

In the current year, Olympus Corporation company and Danaher Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Olympus Corporation company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Olympus Corporation company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Olympus Corporation company nor Danaher Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Danaher Corporation company nor Olympus Corporation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Danaher Corporation company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Olympus Corporation company.

Danaher Corporation company employs more people globally than Olympus Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Medical Equipment Manufacturing.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Danaher Corporation nor Olympus Corporation holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers assume that the history index is always available and call blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap() directly. That assumption is false by construction. HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() explicitly returns None for the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state. when a full node is syncing or otherwise running without the history index, a remote peer can send RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress and trigger an Option::unwrap() panic on the request path. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.5.95, FileTools.download_file() in praisonaiagents validates the destination path but performs no validation on the url parameter, passing it directly to httpx.stream() with follow_redirects=True. An attacker who controls the URL can reach any host accessible from the server including cloud metadata services and internal network services. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.95.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, OAuthManager.validate_token() returns True for any token not found in its internal store, which is empty by default. Any HTTP request to the MCP server with an arbitrary Bearer token is treated as authenticated, granting full access to all registered tools and agent capabilities. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, the PraisonAI Gateway server accepts WebSocket connections at /ws and serves agent topology at /info with no authentication. Any network client can connect, enumerate registered agents, and send arbitrary messages to agents and their tool sets. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.90, MCPToolIndex.search_tools() compiles a caller-supplied string directly as a Python regular expression with no validation, sanitization, or timeout. A crafted regex causes catastrophic backtracking in the re engine, blocking the Python thread for hundreds of seconds and causing a complete service outage. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.90.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References