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

Comparison Overview

Aurora Medical Center – Mount PleasantAurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant
VS
Johnson & Johnson MedTechJohnson & Johnson MedTech
Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant

Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant

13250 Washington Ave, Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, 53177, US

Last Update: 05/01/2026

View Profile

At Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant, we’re here to offer safe, equitable, patient-centered health care for all our community. Our medical center and adjacent medical office building offer inpatient and outpatient care, pending certification for a Level III trauma ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:15
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

1 Johnson and Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, US, 08901

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
811/1000Good

At Johnson & Johnson MedTech, we are working to solve the world’s most pressing healthcare challenges through innovations at the intersection of biology and technology. With deep expertise in surgery, orthopaedics, cardiovascular, and vision, we design healthcare soluti...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:36,750
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant

Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant

-
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
Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

-
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 Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant 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 - Johnson & Johnson MedTech (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson & Johnson MedTech 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...
Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant

Aurora Medical Center – Mount Pleasant

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Johnson & Johnson MedTech

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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