Comparison Overview

Aster DM Healthcare

VS

Prisma Health

Aster DM Healthcare

AE
Last Update: 2026-01-18

From a single medical centre to a performance-driven healthcare enterprise spread across more than 400+ medical establishments, including 15 hospitals, 120 clinics and 307 pharmacies in GCC and growing, Aster DM Healthcare has transitioned into being the leading healthcare authority across the Middle East. Currently one of the largest and fastest growing conglomerates in the MENA region, Aster DM Healthcare covers the full spectrum of healthcare services. An expansive portfolio includes hospitals and clinics, pharmacies, diagnostic centres, educational institutions, healthcare management and healthcare support systems. Headquartered in Dubai, the Aster DM network now encompasses more than 19,657 employees( Doctors, Nurses, Others) with JCI accredited clinics and diagnostic centres. Never content to rest on its laurels, Aster DM Healthcare is constantly seeking opportunities to set new yardsticks with advanced developments. With many more innovative and ambitious initiatives, Aster DM Healthcare has radically catalyzed the healthcare revolution across Middle East Each of the Group’s verticals is a symbol of distinction, driven by the commitment to build a healthier tomorrow and to take healthcare to the next level of excellence.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 18,904
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Prisma Health

300 E McBee Ave, Greenville, 29601, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Prisma Health is the largest not-for-profit health organization in South Carolina, serving more than 1.2 million patients annually. Our facilities in the Greenville and Columbia surrounding markets are dedicated to improving the health of all South Carolinians through improved clinical quality, access to care and patient experience, while also addressing the rising cost of health care. Our Purpose: Inspire health. Serve with compassion. Be the difference.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 13,747
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/asterdmhealthcare.jpeg
Aster DM Healthcare
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/prisma-health.jpeg
Prisma Health
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Aster DM Healthcare
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Prisma Health
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Aster DM Healthcare in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Prisma Health in 2026.

Incident History — Aster DM Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aster DM Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Prisma Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prisma Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/asterdmhealthcare.jpeg
Aster DM Healthcare
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/prisma-health.jpeg
Prisma Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Stolen Credentials
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Aster DM Healthcare company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Prisma Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Prisma Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Aster DM Healthcare company has not reported any.

In the current year, Prisma Health company and Aster DM Healthcare company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Prisma Health company nor Aster DM Healthcare company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Prisma Health company nor Aster DM Healthcare company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Prisma Health company nor Aster DM Healthcare company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare company nor Prisma Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare nor Prisma Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Aster DM Healthcare company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Prisma Health company.

Aster DM Healthcare company employs more people globally than Prisma Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare nor Prisma Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare nor Prisma Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare nor Prisma Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare nor Prisma Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare nor Prisma Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aster DM Healthcare nor Prisma Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N