Blue Goat CyberBlue Goat CyberSMMedical Device Cybersecurity
    Start here
    Services
    • FDA Premarket Cybersecurity Package
    • Medical Device Penetration Testing
    • Medical Device Threat Modeling
    • FDA Deficiency Response
    • FDA Postmarket Cybersecurity
    • MedTech Compliance Bundle
    See all services
    Products

    Blue Goat products

    • GoatWatch logoGoatWatchSBOM risk management for medical devices
    About
    Resources

    Learn

    • Blog
    • Podcast
    • Webinars
    • Talks & workshops
    • Glossary
    • FAQs

    Playbooks & Tools

    • Guides
    • Playbooks (PDF)
    • Infographics
    • Interactive Tools

    Signals & Proof

    • Goat FeedNew
    • News
    • Medical Device Security News
    • The Goat's Weekly
    • Case Studies
    • Proof / Receipts
    All resources, topic hubs, & collections →
    ⌘K
    Book Strategy SessionHow to prepare →
    Blue Goat Cyber

    Full-service medical device cybersecurity. We protect patients by securing connected medical devices from design through postmarket.

    275+ FDA submissions supported, zero cybersecurity rejections · Mission: 1,000 by 2028

    SDVOSB · Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

    We sponsor 10 community projects →

    Services

    • FDA Premarket Cybersecurity Package
    • FDA Deficiency Response
    • Medical Device Threat Modeling
    • Medical Device Penetration Testing
    • FDA Postmarket Cybersecurity
    • All services →
    Services
    • FDA Premarket Cybersecurity Package
    • FDA Deficiency Response
    • Medical Device Threat Modeling
    • Medical Device Penetration Testing
    • FDA Postmarket Cybersecurity
    • All services →

    Company

    • About
    • Core values
    • Manifesto
    • Leadership
    • Why Us
    • Partners
    • Careers
    • Press
    • Press kit
    • Contact
    • Company overviewPDF
    Company
    • About
    • Core values
    • Manifesto
    • Leadership
    • Why Us
    • Partners
    • Careers
    • Press
    • Press kit
    • Contact
    • Company overviewPDF

    Resources

    • Blog
    • Guides
    • Podcast
    • Case studies
    • Monthly Pulse newsletter
    • All resources →
    Resources
    • Blog
    • Guides
    • Podcast
    • Case studies
    • Monthly Pulse newsletter
    • All resources →

    Get in touch

    • info@bluegoatcyber.com
    • 844-939-GOAT
    • Book a strategy session →
    • 1776 N Scottsdale Rd, Unit 727
      Scottsdale, AZ 85257Serving clients worldwide

    Follow

    © 2026 Blue Goat Cyber. All rights reserved.

    • Privacy
    • Terms
    • Cookies
    • Sitemap
    • Accessibility
    • CVD

    MedTech Cybersecurity · Since 2022

    1. Home
    2. Compare
    3. AAMI SW96 vs TIR57

    AAMI SW96 vs TIR57

    Side-by-side comparison of the two AAMI medical device cybersecurity risk-management documents most often cited in FDA submissions.

    Quick answer

    What is the difference between AAMI SW96 and AAMI TIR57?

    ANSI/AAMI SW96:2023 is the current normative consensus standard for medical device cybersecurity risk management and is FDA-recognized. AAMI TIR57 is an older Technical Information Report (informative, not normative) that introduced the security risk-management file concept and remains available, but is superseded by SW96 as the primary reference for new FDA premarket submissions under the 2026 guidance.

    Sources: ANSI/AAMI SW96:2023; AAMI TIR57:2016/(R)2019; FDA Recognized Consensus Standards
    DimensionANSI/AAMI SW96:2023AAMI TIR57:2016/(R)2019
    Document typeANSI/AAMI consensus standard (normative).AAMI Technical Information Report (informative).
    Published2023 (ANSI/AAMI SW96:2023).2016, reaffirmed 2019 (AAMI TIR57:2016/(R)2019).
    FDA recognitionRecognized consensus standard (FDA Recognition #5-148).Cited in 2014 and 2018 FDA premarket guidance; superseded as the primary reference in the 2026 final guidance.
    Risk-management frameworkAligns to ISO 14971 but adds a parallel cybersecurity risk process with explicit threat-modeling and exploitability inputs.Adapts ISO 14971 vocabulary to security; introduces the security risk-management file concept.
    Threat modelingRequired activity with explicit linkage to risk register entries.Recommended; methodology left to the manufacturer.
    Use todayPreferred reference for new submissions under the FDA 2026 guidance.Still acceptable; many legacy quality systems and risk files reference it.
    RelationshipBuilds on TIR57 and supersedes it as the consensus standard.Conceptual ancestor of SW96; remains a useful tutorial reference.

    When to use which

    For any new FDA premarket submission planned under the Cybersecurity in Medical Devices final guidance (effective February 3, 2026), build the cybersecurity risk-management file against ANSI/AAMI SW96:2023. Map every threat in the threat model to a SW96 risk register entry and to a verification or mitigation artifact in the submission package.

    Programs with mature, audited risk files written against AAMI TIR57 do not need to be rebuilt from scratch. Maintain TIR57 traceability and add a SW96 conformance overlay that demonstrates equivalence to reviewers - Blue Goat Cyber routinely produces this crosswalk as part of a deficiency-letter response.

    What changes when you move from TIR57 to SW96

    • Threat modeling becomes required, and each threat must link to an entry in the security risk register.
    • Exploitability replaces probability. Security risk is scored on how easily a threat can be exploited, not on how likely it is to happen. Language like "unlikely" or "low probability" in a security risk file is a common reviewer flag.
    • Traceability tightens. Each security control should trace to a threat, a risk entry and a test that shows it works.
    • Security risk connects to safety risk. Where a security threat could cause patient harm, the security file feeds the ISO 14971 safety risk file instead of living on its own.

    A practical migration checklist

    1. Inventory where your procedures and risk files cite TIR57.
    2. Update the security risk procedure to use exploitability scoring and require a threat model.
    3. Re-score open risks with the new method and document why any ratings changed.
    4. Add traceability from each control to its verification test.
    5. Keep the TIR57 history for audit, with a crosswalk showing how it maps to SW96.

    Related

    • AAMI TIR57 vs TIR97 vs SW96: Which Applies to Your Device?
    • SW96 in the standards glossary
    • TIR57 in the standards glossary
    • Threat-modeling service
    • FDA premarket cybersecurity services
    Ready when you are

    Secure your device before it reaches patients.

    30-minute strategy session. No cost, no commitment - just answers from people who've supported 275+ FDA submissions, with zero cybersecurity rejections.

    Book strategy sessionExplore services