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

Comparison Overview

Ascension Seton Cedar ParkAscension Seton Cedar Park
VS
UT Southwestern Medical CenterUT Southwestern Medical Center
Ascension Seton Cedar Park

Ascension Seton Cedar Park

1401 Medical Parkway, Cedar Park, Texas, US, 78613

Last Update: 04/02/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

Answering God's call to bring health, healing and hope to all. Ascension is one of the nation’s leading non-profit and Catholic health systems, with a Mission of delivering compassionate, personalized care to all with special attention to those most vulnerable. In FY202...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:437
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UT Southwestern Medical Center

UT Southwestern Medical Center

5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas, US, 75390

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
786/1000Fair

UT Southwestern is an academic medical center, world-renowned for its research, regarded among the best in the country for medical education and for clinical and scientific training, and nationally recognized for the quality of care its faculty provides to patients at U...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:18,678
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ascension Seton Cedar Park

Ascension Seton Cedar Park

-
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
UT Southwestern Medical Center

UT Southwestern Medical Center

-
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 Ascension Seton Cedar Park in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for UT Southwestern Medical Center in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ascension Seton Cedar Park (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ascension Seton Cedar Park 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 - UT Southwestern Medical Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UT Southwestern Medical Center 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...
Ascension Seton Cedar Park

Ascension Seton Cedar Park

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UT Southwestern Medical Center

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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