Finite State vs Sternum
Two answers to the same problem, that medical device firmware leans heavily on components the manufacturer did not write, applied at opposite ends of the lifecycle. Finite State finds them: binary analysis unpacks the shipped artifact without source code access, identifies the vulnerable components, and packages the reachability evidence a regulator will accept. Sternum neutralises them: its patented Embedded Integrity Verification blocks any attempt to divert the device's execution flow at runtime, so it stops unknown and zero day exploits without knowing which flaw was used, and it works even when the device is disconnected. The engineering irony this index records is that Sternum's runtime protection, arguably the most elegant approach in the category, contains no machine learning at all and is graded C on AI centrality for it, honestly. If your failure mode is identifying and documenting vulnerable components for the submission, start with Finite State. If your failure mode is protecting deployed devices you cannot easily patch, start with Sternum. Many manufacturers will want both.
- Find the vulnerable component before it ships: binary analysis across a reported 130 plus formats identifies libraries and flaws inside firmware without source code access, graded A on model transparency and A on setting for covering design through postmarket.
- The artifact a reviewer asks for: audit ready VEX documents with defensible not affected justifications, mapping automatically to FDA Section 524B and the EU Cyber Resilience Act, converting an unmanageable CVE list into a documented position.
- Reachability analysis reduces the noise it reports by up to 80 percent by determining whether a vulnerable path can execute, so remediation effort goes where a path is actually exploitable.
- Defend the device after it ships, regardless of which flaw: patented Embedded Integrity Verification blocks any attempt to divert the execution flow, so it stops unknown and zero day exploits without needing to know the vulnerability, graded A on autonomy.
- The deployment position no competitor matches, graded A: protection runs inside the firmware and works when the device is entirely disconnected, at a reported 1 to 3 percent latency overhead, which addresses the isolated and legacy equipment that network tools cannot reach.
- It reduces dependence on field patching, the postmarket obligation that is slow, costly, and sometimes impossible on deployed clinical devices, and it runs across RTOS and embedded Linux including legacy hardware.
Side-by-Side
| Axis | F Finite State |
S Sternum |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model and Technology Transparency | ||
| Clinical and Operational Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and PHI Stewardship | ||
| HIPAA and BAA Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| FDA and Regulatory Status | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| EHR and Interoperability Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Setting and Specialty Coverage |
These two address the manufacturer's obligation at different lifecycle points and are closer to complementary than competing: Finite State identifies and documents vulnerable components before shipment, Sternum neutralises exploitation at runtime after shipment. Both grade A on model transparency and PHI, and neither processes patient data. The AI centrality grades are both honest downgrades: Finite State B because its depth is program analysis rather than machine learning, Sternum C because its flagship Embedded Integrity Verification is deterministic and the company says so plainly, presenting the determinism as the feature. That determinism is why Sternum earns A on autonomy where autonomous enforcement is dangerous elsewhere in this category: it verifies whether execution flow was diverted rather than guessing whether behaviour is anomalous, so it carries none of the false positive exposure. Finite State grades C on governance because its reachability calls justify not remediating. Both grade C on evidence with no independent benchmark located. Neither publishes a security attestation or pricing.