Comparison Overview

Philips

VS

Abbott

Philips

Amstelplein 2, Amsterdam, 1096 BC, NL
Last Update: 2026-03-28

Over the past decade we have transformed into a focused leader in health technology. At Philips, our purpose is to improve people’s health and well-being through meaningful innovation. We aim to improve 2.5 billion lives per year by 2030, including 400 million in underserved communities. We see healthcare as a connected whole. Helping people to live healthily and prevent disease. Giving clinicians the tools they need to make a precision diagnosis and deliver personalized treatment. Aiding the patient's recovery at home in the community. All supported by a seamless flow of data. As a technology company, we – and our brand licensees – innovate for people with one consistent belief: there’s always a way to make life better. Visit our website: http://www.philips.com/ Follow our social media house rules https://www.philips.com/a-w/about-philips/social-media.html

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 71,631
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Abbott

100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, Illinois, US, 60064-3500
Last Update: 2026-03-25
Between 650 and 699

Abbott is a global healthcare leader that helps people live more fully at all stages of life. Our portfolio of life-changing technologies spans the spectrum of healthcare, with leading businesses and products in diagnostics, medical devices, nutritional and branded generic medicines. Our 114,000 colleagues serve people in more than 160 countries. Connect with us at www.abbott.com, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/Abbott and www.facebook.com/AbbottCareers, on Instagram @AbbottGlobal, and on X @AbbottNews. We invite you to explore opportunities at Abbott, to see if your talents and career aspirations may fit with our openings. An equal opportunity employer, Abbott welcomes and encourages diversity in our workforce. Terms of Use: https://www.abbott.com/social-media-terms-of-use.htm

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 164,309
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/philips.jpeg
Philips
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/abbott-.jpeg
Abbott
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
Philips
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Abbott
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

Philips has 29.58% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

Abbott has 29.58% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Philips (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Philips cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Abbott (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Abbott cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/philips.jpeg
Philips
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2026
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain, Espionage, Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/abbott-.jpeg
Abbott
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Exploit (CVE-2025-61882, CVE-2025-21884), Unauthenticated HTTP Requests, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain (Ransomware Extortion)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Loss (Misplaced Portable Drive)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Abbott company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Philips company.

In the current year, Abbott and Philips have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Both Abbott company and Philips company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Both Abbott company and Philips company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Abbott company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Philips company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Philips company nor Abbott company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Philips nor Abbott holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Philips company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Abbott company.

Abbott company employs more people globally than Philips company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Philips nor Abbott holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Philips nor Abbott holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Philips nor Abbott holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Philips nor Abbott holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Philips nor Abbott holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Philips nor Abbott holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3300R 17.0.0cu.557_b20221024. This affects the function setLanCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument lanIp leads to command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94.

Description

Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3 improperly process annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data, resulting in arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the UI. Specifically, the @execute annotation (which is intended for trusted, user-authored comments) is also parsed in comments generated during auto-analysis (such as CFStrings in Mach-O binaries). This allows a crafted binary to present seemingly benign clickable text which, when clicked, executes attacker-controlled commands on the analyst’s machine.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A critical security vulnerability in parisneo/lollms versions up to 2.2.0 allows any authenticated user to accept or reject friend requests belonging to other users. The `respond_request()` function in `backend/routers/friends.py` does not implement proper authorization checks, enabling Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) attacks. Specifically, the `/api/friends/requests/{friendship_id}` endpoint fails to verify whether the authenticated user is part of the friendship or the intended recipient of the request. This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access, privacy violations, and potential social engineering attacks. The issue has been addressed in version 2.2.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in parisneo/lollms versions prior to 2.2.0, specifically in the `/api/files/export-content` endpoint. The `_download_image_to_temp()` function in `backend/routers/files.py` fails to validate user-controlled URLs, allowing attackers to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This vulnerability can lead to internal network access, cloud metadata access, information disclosure, port scanning, and potentially remote code execution.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N