Compare

    Two terms, side by side

    Pick any two terms to see definitions, context, pitfalls, and sources in parallel.

    Curated comparison tables

    In-depth, attribute-by-attribute tables for the most common MedTech term pairs. Each row is sourced from the linked term pages.

    Cybersecurity

    Threat Modeling

    In one line
    A structured analysis that identifies how an attacker could compromise a medical device and what controls mitigate each threat.
    Definition
    Threat modeling is a structured engineering activity in which a cross-functional team analyzes a device's architecture, data flows, trust boundaries, and assets to identify how an attacker could compromise confidentiality, integrity, availability, or safety - and then designs or selects controls to mitigate the identified threats. The most widely used framework in MedTech is STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege) developed by Microsoft, often combined with attack-tree or kill-chain analysis. AAMI TIR57:2016 "Principles for Medical Device Security - Risk Management" provides MedTech-specific guidance.
    Why it matters
    Threat modeling is most effective when done early (during architecture) and revisited at every major design change. Mature MedTech teams keep the threat model as a living artifact in the Design History File and re-walk it as part of design reviews. AAMI TIR57 and the MITRE Playbook for Threat Modeling Medical Devices both provide templates and examples MedTech teams can adapt.
    Common pitfalls
    • •Producing a one-shot threat model at submission rather than maintaining it through the lifecycle.
    • •Listing generic threats (malware, ransomware) without mapping them to specific device interfaces and trust boundaries.
    • •Skipping the four views FDA specifically calls out - global system, multi-patient harm, updateability/patchability, security use case.
    • •Failing to feed threat-model outputs into the ISO 14971 risk management file.
    Open full page
    Select term B to compare.

    Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

    MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

    Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

    Common comparison patterns

    How to use this tool

    Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

    MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.