Comparison Overview

Banner Health

VS

Centene Corporation

Banner Health

2901 N Central Ave., Phoenix, 85012, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
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: 34,851
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Centene Corporation

7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Saint Louis, 63105, US
Last Update: 2026-01-15
Between 750 and 799

Centene Corporation is a leading healthcare enterprise committed to helping people live healthier lives. Centene offers affordable and high-quality products to more than 1 in 15 individuals across the nation, including Medicaid and Medicare members (including Medicare Prescription Drug Plans) as well as individuals and families served by the Health Insurance Marketplace. Centene believes healthcare is best delivered locally. Our local health plans provide fully integrated, high-quality, and cost-effective services to government-sponsored and commercial healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. Centene’s hiring practices reflect the composition of the members and communities we serve, allowing us to deliver quality, culturally sensitive healthcare to millions of members. Centene employees help change the world of healthcare and transform our communities. To learn more about career opportunities with Centene, visit: https://jobs.centene.com/

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 34,905
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/centene-corporation.jpeg
Centene Corporation
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
Centene Corporation
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 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Centene Corporation in 2026.

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

Banner Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Centene Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Centene Corporation 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/centene-corporation.jpeg
Centene Corporation
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2016
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Centene Corporation 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 faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Centene Corporation company.

In the current year, Centene Corporation company and Banner Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Centene Corporation company nor Banner Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Centene Corporation company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Banner Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Banner Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Centene Corporation company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Banner Health company nor Centene Corporation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Banner Health nor Centene Corporation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Centene Corporation company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Banner Health company.

Centene Corporation company employs more people globally than Banner Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Banner Health nor Centene Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Centene Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Centene Corporation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Centene Corporation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Centene Corporation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Banner Health nor Centene Corporation 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