Comparison Overview

Banner Health

VS

Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist

Banner Health

2901 N Central Ave., None, Phoenix, AZ, US, 85012
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Headquartered in Arizona, Banner Health is one of the largest nonprofit health care systems in the country. The system owns and operates 33 acute-care hospitals, Banner Health Network, Banner – University Medicine, academic and employed physician groups, long-term care centers, outpatient surgery centers and an array of other services; including Banner Urgent Care, family clinics, home care and hospice services, pharmacies and a nursing registry. Banner Health is in six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada and Wyoming.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 34,176
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist

Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, US, 27157
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist is a nationally recognized academic medical center and health system based in Winston-Salem, NC, part of Advocate Health, the third-largest nonprofit health system in the United States. Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist’s two main components are an integrated clinical system – anchored by Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, an 885-bed tertiary-care hospital in Winston-Salem – that includes Brenner Children’s Hospital, five community hospitals, more than 300 primary and specialty care locations and more than 2,700 physicians; and Wake Forest University School of Medicine, a recognized leader in experiential medical education and groundbreaking research. Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist and Wake Forest University School of Medicine are the academic core of Advocate Health. Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist employs more than 20,000 teammates, part of Advocate Health’s 150,000 teammates. Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist provided a record-setting $611.2 million in community benefits during the 2021 fiscal year, which includes unreimbursed care, charity care, education and research, and community health improvement.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,499
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/atrium-health-wake-forest-baptist.jpeg
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist
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
Banner Health
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist
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 Banner Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist in 2025.

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

Banner Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/banner-health.jpeg
Banner Health
Incidents
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/atrium-health-wake-forest-baptist.jpeg
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Banner Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Banner Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company has not reported any.

In the current year, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company and Banner Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company nor Banner Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company nor Banner Health company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Banner Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Banner Health company nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Banner Health nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Banner Health company nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Banner Health company employs more people globally than Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Banner Health nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H