Clinical Laboratory Manager

Genomics testing lab notifies nearly 310,000 of hack. Baylor Genetics Among the Latest Medical Labs, Bio-Tech Firms Attacked Marianne Kolbasuk McGee (HealthInfoSec) - August 20, 2026 Genomics testing firm Baylor Genetics is notifying nearly 310,000 people and counting about a June hack that compromised sensitive patient information including test results and employee data. The incident is the latest in a rash of attacks hitting medical laboratories, biotech and life sciences firms. Baylor Genetics has so far reported to several state attorneys general that nearly 250,000 Texans were affected, as well as nearly 57,000 citizens in Massachusetts and more than 2,600 residents of Vermont. Baylor Genetics in a breach notice said that it discovered suspicious activity on a limited portion of its IT environment around June 15. An investigation into the incident determined that a threat actor accessed portions of Baylor Genetics' network and certain stored data between June 11 and June 17. Patient information potentially compromised varied by individual but may have included names, date of birth, medical testing information, laboratory test results, health insurance information, as well as Social Security number for a limited subset of individuals. For current or former employees, the information potentially affected may have included personal identifying information such as Social Security numbers, government-issued identification numbers and financial account information. "At this time, Baylor Genetics is not aware of any confirmed identity theft, fraud or misuse of personal information related to this incident," the company said. No cybercrime groups have surfaced on the darkweb claiming responsibility for the incident. As its name implies, Baylor Genetics provides genetic testing and diagnostic services, including genomic sequencing, to uncover conditions related to rare diseases, pediatric genetics, reproductive health, hereditary cancer, metabolic disorders and other issues. The company's roots trace to 1978 when two physician-scientists founded the department of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine. By 1996, the company was selected as one of six pilot sites for the final phases of the Human Genome Project, a research endeavor that has led to modern-day genomics discoveries. Baylor Genetics did not immediately respond to ISMG's request for additional details pertaining to its hacking incident. The Baylor Genetics breach report comes on the heels of hacks on other medical laboratories, bio tech companies and med tech firms in recent weeks and months. Similar breaches. Other recent hacks include the theft of data from clinical testing laboratory and medical device maker Abbott Laboratories and its cancer diagnostics business Exact Sciences. Cybercrime gang ShinyHunters and another gang, ShadowByt3$, each claimed to steal data - including artificial intelligence models - from Abbott's Exact Sciences unit (see: Craneware, Abbott Probe Separate Health Data Theft Incidents). Also, cybercrime gang FulcrumSec in recent weeks claimed it leaked on its darkweb site two large caches of data the group claims it stole in a June attack on Novo Nordisk. The latest data dump allegedly includes the Danish drug maker's "complete enterprise Hugging Face AI and machine learning ecosystem" (see: Extortion Gang Leaks Novo Nordisk 'AI and ML Ecosystem'). In addition to FulcrumSec's claims, in June, a second hacker group, TheUSERS007, told Databreaches.net that it also stole "crown jewel" data - including AI models - from the maker of popular diabetes and weight loss treatment drugs Ozempic and Wegovy. While healthcare sector entities have long been targeted by hackers, life sciences, medical testing and biotech companies and other such sectors are especially attractive targets for cybercriminals, some experts said. "These organizations hold an unusually valuable combination of sensitive health information, personally identifiable information and, in some cases, proprietary research and intellectual property," said Dave Bailey, vice president of solutions and strategy at healthcare privacy and security consultancy Clearwater. "Genomic information is especially sensitive because, unlike a password or credit card number, it is inherently permanent. You cannot change your DNA after a breach." There could be several reasons for the apparent recent focus by cybercriminals on life- and bio-science firms, said Mike Hamilton, CISO emeritus at IT services firm Datec, Inc. "First, they are regulated as a covered entity, and unauthorized disclosure of records brings regulatory action. Additionally, they house sensitive privacy and health information, and our privacy laws facilitate class action when those records are stolen," he said. "Both of those facts give criminals substantial leverage when negotiating extortion demands." Hamilton said it's unlikely that the kind of genetic testing information potentially stolen in the Baylor Genetics hack or similar incidents will be monetized by selling it on the darkweb, "although it may be interesting to some nation states that routinely steal research from American companies." Apart from the threat of regulatory action and civil litigation, hackers also pose additional risk to the integrity of the information compromised, he said. "If it can be stolen, it can be changed. This puts the victim organizations in an even worse position, unable to trust the veracity of their own data - which could have life-safety impacts," he said. "Again, this gives the criminal organization a great deal of leverage." Organizations such as life sciences, medical labs and biotech companies should identify their most sensitive data and systems and apply protections commensurate with the consequences if those assets are compromised, Bailey said. "That means strong segmentation, least-privilege access, phishing-resistant multifactor authentication, encryption, rigorous third-party access controls and continuous monitoring for unusual access or data movement." Meanwhile, AI in the hands of hackers raises the stakes for these companies because it enables attackers to create more convincing phishing and social-engineering campaigns and operate at greater speed and scale, he said. "Organizations should increasingly assume that credentials may eventually be compromised and build controls that prevent one compromised identity from becoming unrestricted access to sensitive data," he said. "Just as importantly, they should regularly test their ability to detect, contain and recover from an attack rather than relying solely on preventative controls."

Abbott Laboratories reported strong fiscal Q2 2026 results, with sales rising 13% on a reported basis and 4.8% on a comparable basis, beating estimates and prompting the company to raise its annual profit forecast. The diagnostics segment was particularly strong, growing 42% to $3.09 billion, driven by its cancer diagnostics business following the Exact Sciences acquisition. Intuitive Surgical also exceeded expectations in Q2 2026, with revenue growing 19% to $2.89 billion and adjusted EPS of $2.80, beating forecasts by $0.30. The company placed 468 da Vinci units during the quarter, an 18% year-over-year increase, whilst maintaining a non-GAAP gross margin of 70.0%. The companies present contrasting investment cases: Abbott offers diversified healthcare portfolio resilience, whilst Intuitive Surgical relies on its robotic surgery ecosystem with recurring revenue comprising approximately 85% of total sales.

Medtech breaches keep hitting corporate IT, not devices - and that's a blind spot in hospital vendor risk. Abbott, Stryker, Intuitive, Medtronic and other medtech companies disclosed cyberattacks this year. None involved a device - and the pattern should reshape how hospitals assess vendor risk. By Carrie Pallardy Aug 17, 2026, 3:22 PM Seven medical technology companies disclosed cyberattacks in the first half of 2026, and not one involved a compromised device. Instead, attackers are opting for corporate IT - internal applications, billing systems, customer portals and, in one case, a third-party platform sitting two steps away from any hospital. "The Hollywood version of medical device cybersecurity is hacking the pacemaker, but the everyday reality is hacking the company that makes the pacemaker," said Daniel Bardenstein, CEO and co-founder of Manifest Cyber and Aspen Policy Academy fellow. And the pace is picking up. Health care providers remain a popular target, but attacks on health care businesses - pharmaceutical companies, billing companies and health care technology providers - jumped 35% in the first half of this year compared to the second half of 2025, according to Comparitech. Stryker, Abbott, Intuitive, Medtronic, UFP Technologies and iRhythm have all disclosed attacks this year, according to company statements. Nearly every disclosure carried the same reassurance - no products were impacted - which is true as far as it goes, but the systems attackers did reach are the ones that hold hospital and patient data and keep billing, orders and deliveries moving. Why medtech companies. Like other parts of the health care supply chain, medtech companies safeguard valuable data and provide services the industry can't operate without, which makes them attractive to financially motivated groups. One of the groups claiming an Abbott attack was ShinyHunters - and the cybersecurity information sharing nonprofit Health-ISAC recently warned that ShinyHunters is having increased success targeting medical technology companies, according to BleepingComputer. Jamie Singer, a senior managing director at FTI Consulting, told DHI that most attacks she has observed on medtech companies have some element of data access and extortion. "They're [attackers] trying to get paid, and when they don't, then they make it very miserable for the organization," she said. "Not all have the disruptive nature, but most that we're seeing certainly have the data theft piece." For other threat actors, disruption is the goal rather than a byproduct. "When you're talking about nation state actors, I do think there is a goal of disruption to critical infrastructure in the US," Singer said. The Handala claim on the Stryker attack fits that pattern. What it costs hospitals. Medtech companies sit inside a tightly interconnected health care ecosystem, and the impact of an attack rarely stays inside the company's walls. "If a hospital gets breached through a medical device or otherwise, not only do those medical devices not work but the whole system may not work," said Sean Kelly, MD, chief medical officer at Imprivata, a digital identity security company, and a practicing ER physician. Kelly has received patients diverted from hospitals disrupted by cyberattacks. "When that happens, patients arrive and you don't have access to their data," he said. "We're starting over trying to understand what their meds are, what their problems are, how to treat them." The result, according to Kelly: care delays, higher risk of errors and increased costs. Regulation mirrors the blind spot. Regulators have taken steps, though largely on the side of the equation attackers are avoiding. The FDA's premarket cybersecurity requirements focus on the device itself, while HHS's Cybersecurity Performance Goals for the health care and public health sector, released in 2024, remain voluntary. "There has been work [done] to identify: how do we establish a minimum, and how do we do the basics better across the sector?" Bardenstein said. "I think there needs to be an increase in what is mandatory and not what is aspirational." "It means that despite the millions of dollars that security leaders at the medtech companies are currently spending, the tooling or the processes they have aren't enough," he added. For hospitals, the same question applies to their own side of the relationship. Most vendor risk assessments still focus on the device - whether it's patched, segmented and hardened against attack. This year's attacks point somewhere else entirely: to the security of the company that makes the pacemaker. Carrie Pallardy, a Chicago-based freelance writer and editor, began her career covering healthcare more than a decade ago. Her work has taken into many different industries, but covering healthcare delivery remains a constant focus. She can be reached at [email protected] or on LinkedIn. Show your support. Subscribe. Enter your information below