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

Comparison Overview

Amsterdam UMCAmsterdam UMC
VS
UMC UtrechtUMC Utrecht
Amsterdam UMC

Amsterdam UMC

Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, undefined, 1100 DE, NL

Last Update: 05/03/2026

View Profile
780/1000Fair

Hallo. Wij zijn Amsterdam UMC. De krachten van AMC en VUmc gebundeld. Samen bouwen we aan een samenleving waarin patiënten worden genezen en ziekten worden voorkomen, vooral wanneer de aandoening bijzonder is en de behandeling complex. Samen leiden we de beste artsen e...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:17,662
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UMC Utrecht

UMC Utrecht

Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3508GA, NL

Last Update: 05/02/2026

View Profile

Elke dag werken we allemaal aan het verder verbeteren van de zorg en de gezondheid van mensen. Vooraan staan is niet genoeg. We willen vooroplopen en de zorg in Nederland verder brengen. Met betrekking tot kennisinnovatie zetten we in op zes inhoudelijke speerpunten: •...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:10,363
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Amsterdam UMC

Amsterdam UMC

-
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 Ziekenhuizen en gezondheidszorg Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amsterdam UMC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Ziekenhuizen en gezondheidszorg Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UMC Utrecht in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

No timeline data available
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...
Amsterdam UMC

Amsterdam UMC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UMC Utrecht

UMC Utrecht

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1