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

Comparison Overview

Akershus universitetssykehusAkershus universitetssykehus
VS
Nova Scotia Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health Authority
Akershus universitetssykehus

Akershus universitetssykehus

Sykehusveien 25, Lørenskog, undefined, 1478, NO

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ahus.no
770/1000Fair

Akershus universitetssykehus (Ahus) er et lokal- og områdesykehus for over 627 000 innbyggere og hovedoppgavene våre er pasientbehandling, forskning, undervisning og pasientopplæring. Vi har pasienttilbud innen somatikk, psykisk helsevern og rusbehandling. Visjonen vår...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:3,463
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Nova Scotia Health Authority

Nova Scotia Health Authority

1276 South Park Street, Halifax, B3H 2Y9, CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.nshealth.ca/
736/1000Moderate

We are Nova Scotia Health. We are rural and urban. We are in hospitals, health centres and community. We serve individuals and communities from Yarmouth to Cape Breton, from Amherst to Halifax, and everything in between. We are researchers and learners, looking for new...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:10,484
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Akershus universitetssykehus

Akershus universitetssykehus

-
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
Nova Scotia Health Authority

Nova Scotia Health Authority

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Akershus universitetssykehus in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Nova Scotia Health Authority in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Akershus universitetssykehus (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Akershus universitetssykehus cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Nova Scotia Health Authority (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nova Scotia Health Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Akershus universitetssykehus

Akershus universitetssykehus

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Nova Scotia Health Authority

Nova Scotia Health Authority

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV195618123
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV44925323
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV856281022

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2