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

Comparison Overview

AscensionAscension
VS
University of Maryland Medical SystemUniversity of Maryland Medical System
Ascension

Ascension

101 South Hanley Rd., Suite 450, St. Louis, MO, US, 63105

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.ascension.org/
100/1000Critical

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 FY...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:65,854
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
University of Maryland Medical System

University of Maryland Medical System

22 S. Greene St, Baltimore, 21201, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.umms.org
781/1000Fair

The University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) was created in 1984 when the state-owned University Hospital became a private, nonprofit organization. It has evolved into a multi-hospital system with academic, community and specialty service missions reaching every par...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:11,445
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ascension

Ascension

-
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
University of Maryland Medical System

University of Maryland Medical System

-
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)

Ascension has 27.01% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for University of Maryland Medical System in 2026.

Incidents

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

Ascension cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - University of Maryland Medical System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Maryland Medical System 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

Ascension

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ASC1773764792
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASC220051225
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ASC000032225
University of Maryland Medical System

University of Maryland Medical System

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3