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

Comparison Overview

AWS for Healthcare & Life SciencesAWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences
VS
IBMIBM
AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences

AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences

Seattle, WA, US

Last Update: 15/05/2026

View Profile
738/1000Moderate

AWS is your source for health innovation, connecting you with the data, solutions, and partners you need to speed time to discovery, improve patient and clinician experiences, and provide equitable access to care. We are committed to helping healthcare and life sciences...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:92
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
IBM

IBM

International Business Machines Corp., Armonk, New York, 10504, US

Last Update: 01/07/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.ibm.com
604/1000Poor

At IBM, we do more than work. We create. We create as technologists, developers, and engineers. We create with our partners. We create with our competitors. If you're searching for ways to make the world work better through technology and infrastructure, software and co...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:336,062
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences

AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences

-
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
IBM

IBM

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences has 34.21% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

IBM has 277.36% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

IBM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences

AWS for Healthcare & Life Sciences

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AWSSOC1778833973
IBM

IBM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ATTIBM1781168591
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ANTARCFLOIBM1776659058
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SIS1777847095

FAQ

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