Security Design ReviewRegulation & ComplianceMedical DevicesPublished February 6, 2026

Scaling Security Design Reviews in Medical Device Companies: A Modern, Compliant Approach

Executive summary

What this whitepaper covers

In medical device companies, cybersecurity is directly tied to patient safety, regulatory approval, and product reliability. As devices become software-driven and increasingly connected, the attack surface expands across cloud services, APIs, mobile apps, and third-party integrations.

Security design reviews (SDRs) and threat modeling are essential to identifying system-level risks early in the design phase.

Regulatory bodies like the FDA now expect manufacturers to demonstrate proactive cybersecurity risk management throughout the product lifecycle. Despite their importance, SDRs remain difficult to scale. Manual, expert-driven processes lead to inconsistent results, limited coverage, and challenges in producing audit-ready evidence.

This whitepaper lays out a model where automation handles the analytical groundwork: extracting context, identifying threats, applying consistent rules while human experts retain full authority over risk acceptance, mitigation decisions, and regulatory interpretation.

The result is scalable SDR coverage that keeps pace with development without compromising the rigor regulators expect. For medical device companies, this approach ensures both regulatory alignment and improved product safety without slowing innovation.

Key findings

What you'll take away

  • ✦Cybersecurity failures in connected medical devices can directly impact patient safety, device integrity, and regulatory approval
  • ✦FDA premarket guidance, IEC 62304, IEC 81001-5-1, and ISO 13485 all require documented, repeatable threat modeling
  • ✦Manual, expert-dependent SDRs produce inconsistent findings and weak DHF traceability: both red flags in audits
  • ✦Automated SDRs enable consistent first-pass analysis while human reviewers focus on risk acceptance and mitigation decisions
  • ✦Scale compliant security design reviews for medical devices without slowing development or compromising audit readiness
Download

Get the full whitepaper

Download the whitepaper to scale security reviews in medical devices with compliance built in

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Which frameworks does a single SDR need to satisfy?
FDA premarket and postmarket cybersecurity guidance, FDA Section 524B, ISO 13485, QSR, IEC 62304, IEC 81001-5-1, HIPAA, and EU MDR. Building the program to the highest bar and producing evidence mapped per framework is the pattern that holds up.
What does an auditor actually want to see?
Traceability. Every threat tied back to an architectural element, every mitigation tied to a threat, every test tied to a mitigation, every accepted residual risk tied to a signed decision. Timestamped and attributed, end to end.
Where do human experts stay load-bearing in an AI-assisted SDR program?
Three places. Risk acceptance decisions. Mitigation selection where tradeoffs are device-specific. Regulatory interpretation where new guidance has not yet been operationalized. AI produces the draft; the expert owns the call.
Can evidence generation keep up with release cycles?
Yes, if it is a byproduct of the review rather than a separate activity. The moment evidence generation becomes its own workstream, it falls behind, and the program fails its next audit. The design is to produce the DHF artifact as part of the SDR itself.