Comparison Overview

Advocate Medical Group

VS

Michigan Medicine

Advocate Medical Group

3075 Highland Parkway, Suite 600, Downers Grove, Illinois, US, 60515
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Advocate Medical Group provides primary care, specialty care, imaging, outpatient services and community-based medical practices throughout the Chicagoland area. We're part of Advocate Aurora Health, one of the top 12 not-for-profit health systems in the country, and an integrated medical group of more than 5,000 physicians and advanced practice clinicians across Illinois and Wisconsin. We're committed to building lifelong relationships with patients by delivering the best health outcomes and highest level of service through an integrated approach to care and wellness. At a glance: -More than 2,300 experts in Illinois in nearly 50 medical and surgical specialties. -More than 350 neighborhood locations with convenient office hours. -Online appointments, same-day visits and evening and weekend hours. -Your personal health information, plus tools to help you stay healthy all in one place in LiveWell. -Quality services and programs including immediate care, imaging and lab testing. Thank you for participating and engaging with Advocate Medical Group on social media. Comments and engagement on our social media platforms are welcomed and encouraged, but we ask that you treat others with respect. Posts we deem to violate these guidelines may be deleted. Read our social media community engagement guidelines: https://bit.ly/3HLHpCX

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 1,132
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Michigan Medicine

1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, 48109, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Michigan Medicine, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is part of one of the world’s leading universities. Michigan Medicine is a premier, highly ranked academic medical center and award-winning health care system with state-of-the-art facilities. Our vision is to create the future of health care through scientific discovery, innovations in education, and the most effective and compassionate care. We want to be the leader in health care, health care reform, and biomedical innovation. Michigan Medicine includes the U-M Hospitals and Health Centers; the U-M Medical School and its Faculty Group Practice; one of the nation's largest biomedical research communities; and education programs that train thousands of future health professionals and scientists each year. We were formerly known as the University of Michigan Medical Center; today that term applies generally to the collection of buildings on our main medical campus in Ann Arbor. We have a close partnership with the U-M School of Nursing and other health sciences schools at U-M. Through the Michigan Health Corporation, we are able to form partnerships outside of our University.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,370
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/advocate-medical-group.jpeg
Advocate Medical Group
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-medicine.jpeg
Michigan Medicine
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Advocate Medical Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Michigan Medicine
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Advocate Medical Group in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Michigan Medicine in 2026.

Incident History — Advocate Medical Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Advocate Medical Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Michigan Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/advocate-medical-group.jpeg
Advocate Medical Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Motivation: Unknown
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-medicine.jpeg
Michigan Medicine
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Third-party vendor compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Email Account
Motivation: Curiosity
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Advocate Medical Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Michigan Medicine company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Michigan Medicine company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Advocate Medical Group company.

In the current year, Michigan Medicine company and Advocate Medical Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Michigan Medicine company nor Advocate Medical Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Michigan Medicine company and Advocate Medical Group company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Michigan Medicine company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Advocate Medical Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Advocate Medical Group company nor Michigan Medicine company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Advocate Medical Group nor Michigan Medicine holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Michigan Medicine company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Advocate Medical Group company.

Michigan Medicine company employs more people globally than Advocate Medical Group company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Advocate Medical Group nor Michigan Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Advocate Medical Group nor Michigan Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Advocate Medical Group nor Michigan Medicine holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Advocate Medical Group nor Michigan Medicine holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Advocate Medical Group nor Michigan Medicine holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Advocate Medical Group nor Michigan Medicine holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N