Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

AbbottAbbott
VS
UMC UtrechtUMC Utrecht
Abbott

Abbott

100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, 60064-3500, US

Last Update: 26/08/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.abbott.com
647/1000Poor

Abbott is a global healthcare leader that helps people live more fully at all stages of life. Our portfolio of life-changing technologies spans the spectrum of healthcare, with leading businesses and products in diagnostics, medical devices, nutritional and branded gene...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:149,704
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3
UMC Utrecht

UMC Utrecht

Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3508GA, NL

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile

The University Medical Center Utrecht is one of the largest academic healthcare institutions in the Netherlands. We provide the best healthcare for today’s patients, and we also work towards a healthy society in the future. Our organization has three core tasks: care, r...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:10,674
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Abbott

Abbott

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
UMC Utrecht

UMC Utrecht

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

Abbott has 112.77% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UMC Utrecht in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Abbott (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Abbott cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - UMC Utrecht (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UMC Utrecht cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Abbott

Abbott

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ABBNOV1787754614
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ABBEXA1784305475
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BROBECTHEORAABB1773750615
UMC Utrecht

UMC Utrecht

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Abbott company and UMC Utrecht company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Abbott and UMC Utrecht, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Abbott and UMC Utrecht, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Abbott or UMC Utrecht ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Abbott or UMC Utrecht ?
Between Abbott and UMC Utrecht, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Abbott and UMC Utrecht, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA