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
- Health delivery organizations that want a healthcare-focused managed security partner for medical devices and clinical ecosystems
- Leaders who need hands-on security operations help rather than another unowned dashboard
- Buyers comparing boutique healthcare MSSP coverage under mid-market budgets
Weak fit
- Enterprises standardized on a global MSSP with no room for a specialty healthcare partner
- Teams that only want a one-time risk assessment PDF with no operating retainers
- Buyers shopping IoMT discovery software with no services component
Bottom line
Cyber Salus earns a Conditional as a boutique healthcare cybersecurity and managed-security partner for medical devices and clinical environments. Outcomes depend on whether leadership funds ongoing operations rather than a single assessment. Product and service strength is healthcare-shaped MSSP coverage; the firm is young (founded 2023) with estimated revenue near $5M, under the hard cap. Implementation is a services engagement more than a self-serve SaaS install. Score sits under Fortified Health Security and Clearwater on scale and brand proof, and under Ordr when the buyer needs software-led IoMT inventory first.
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 focuses on managed security and protection patterns for medical devices and clinical ecosystems rather than a single consumer IT stack.
It is services-led. Compare Fortified Health Security when you want a larger healthcare MSSP, Clearwater when compliance and risk programs dominate, Censinet when third-party risk operations are the job, and Ordr when software-led IoMT asset intelligence is the first gap.
Score reflects useful specialty positioning with Conditional marks on scale and public proof versus larger peers.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Cyber Salus | 6.7 | 6.6 |
| Clearwater | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Fortified Health Security | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Censinet | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| Ordr | 7.5 | 7.2 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Managed security and advisory packaging for healthcare organizations; quote-based retainers. |
| What usually drives cost | Scope (devices, sites, 24/7 coverage), assessment vs ongoing ops, and reporting depth. |
| What to ask in diligence | Monthly retainer and onboarding fees for your facility count, with SLA hours and medical-device scope defined. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. Expect retainer-based MSSP pricing. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Cyber Salus to function | |
| Named security or clinical-engineering owner | Dashboards without owners become wallpaper. |
| Baseline unknown-device count and critical vulnerability exposure captured | You cannot prove value without a before number. |
| Network tap or sensor placement plan agreed with networking | Blind spots recreate false confidence. |
| Response owners for device risk findings after go-live | Unworked findings are not risk reduction. |
| Change-control path for segmentation or patching defined | Findings without action waste the license. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track unknown-to-known device coverage weekly for 90 days | Alert volume is not outcomes. |
| Start with one clinical network segment first | Narrow wins beat empty enterprise banners. |
| Close or accept top critical device risks in a standing huddle | Silent aging hides failure. |
| Retire duplicate spreadsheet inventories after parallel month | Dual inventories double work. |
| Publish a monthly device-risk digest to CIO and clinical engineering | Hidden exposure surprises leadership. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Nobody will own device-risk findings. | |
| Networking will not allow the visibility path the product needs. | |
| You expect a policy binder alone to replace device inventory. | |
| Leadership will not fund remediation after findings. | |
| Biomed will not partner on clinical device changes. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scope & baseline | 2-4 weeks - Segments, sensors, baseline inventory. |
| 2 | Deploy | 4-10 weeks - Sensors/integrations; classify assets. |
| 3 | Pilot | 4-8 weeks - One site; risk workflow live. |
| 4 | Scale | 2-6 months - Add sites; enforce segmentation where approved. |
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 actually 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.