Healthcare cybersecurity · Healthcare cyber MSSP
Cyber Salus
Cyber Salus provides healthcare-focused cybersecurity and managed security services for medical devices and clinical environments. It is not a general-purpose consumer IT antivirus brand.
Strong fit
- Care providers that want a healthcare-focused managed security partner for medical devices and clinical systems
- Leaders who need hands-on security help, not another dashboard no one owns
- Buyers with mid-sized budgets comparing small healthcare managed security firms
Weak fit
- Large organizations committed to a global managed security provider, with no room for a healthcare specialist
- Teams that only want a one-time risk report, with no ongoing contract
- Buyers who only want software to find medical devices, with no services
Bottom line
Cyber Salus is worth considering for hospitals that want a small, healthcare-focused managed security partner for medical devices and clinical systems. It suits leaders who will fund ongoing security work beyond a one-time assessment. Buyers who want a larger firm or software-led device inventory may prefer Fortified, Clearwater, or Ordr.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Cyber Salus is a healthcare cybersecurity firm led by founder and CEO Sher Baig. It was founded in 2023, so it is young.
It focuses on managed security for medical devices and clinical systems, not general office IT.
Its results depend on whether leaders fund ongoing security operations and not just a single assessment. Working with Cyber Salus is a services engagement more than a software install.
Among the cybersecurity firms we review, Cyber Salus scores below Fortified Health Security and Clearwater on scale and public proof. It also scores below Ordr when a buyer first needs software to list its devices.
Fortified suits buyers who want a larger healthcare managed security provider, and Clearwater suits compliance and risk programs. Censinet suits vendor risk work, and Ordr suits buyers whose first gap is a device inventory.
The Conditional rating reflects a useful healthcare focus with less proof than larger firms.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Clearwater | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Fortified Health Security | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Defendify | 7.6 | 7.4 |
| Censinet | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Pondurance | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| Meditology Services | 7.1 | 7.0 |
| First Health Advisory | 6.9 | 7.0 |
| Cyber Salus | 6.7 | 6.6 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Managed security and advice for healthcare organizations, on quoted monthly contracts. |
| What usually drives cost | What is covered (devices, sites, 24/7 coverage), a one-time review versus ongoing work, and how detailed the reports are. |
| What to ask before you buy | The monthly fee and setup fees for your number of facilities, with response times and the medical devices covered written down. |
| Published pricing | Cyber Salus does not publish prices. Expect a monthly contract. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Cyber Salus to function | |
| A named security or clinical engineering lead | Dashboards with no owner get ignored. |
| Current numbers for unknown devices and critical security gaps | You cannot show value without a starting number. |
| A plan, agreed with the network team, for where to place sensors | Blind spots give false confidence. |
| People who will act on device risks after launch | Findings no one acts on do not reduce risk. |
| A clear approval process for separating networks or patching | Findings without action waste the money. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track how many unknown devices become known every week for 90 days | The number of alerts is not a result. |
| Start with one part of the clinical network | A small real win is worth more than a broad launch with nothing behind it. |
| Fix or formally accept the most critical device risks in a regular short meeting | Risks that quietly sit hide problems. |
| Stop using spreadsheet device lists after one month of both | Two device lists double the work. |
| Send the CIO and clinical engineering a monthly device risk summary | Hidden risks surprise leaders later. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No one will own device risks. | |
| The network team will not allow the access needed to see devices. | |
| You expect a policy binder to replace a device inventory. | |
| Leaders will not pay to fix what is found. | |
| Biomedical engineering will not work with you on clinical device changes. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Plan and measure the starting point | 2-4 weeks. Choose network areas and sensors, and list current devices. |
| 2 | Install | 4-10 weeks. Install sensors and connections, and sort devices by type. |
| 3 | Pilot | 4-8 weeks. Run one site with the risk process in use. |
| 4 | Expand | 2-6 months. Add sites and separate networks where approved. |
Leadership
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.