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

Comparison Overview

Ambulance TasmaniaAmbulance Tasmania
VS
UMC UtrechtUMC Utrecht
Ambulance Tasmania

Ambulance Tasmania

Lower Level , 12 Brisbane St, Hobart, 7000, AU

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://ambulance.tas.gov.au
746/1000Moderate

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:319
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
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
Ambulance Tasmania

Ambulance Tasmania

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Ambulance Tasmania in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for UMC Utrecht in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ambulance Tasmania (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ambulance Tasmania 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...
Ambulance Tasmania

Ambulance Tasmania

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AMB104124522
UMC Utrecht

UMC Utrecht

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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