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

Comparison Overview

BarnesCareBarnesCare
VS
Texas Health ResourcesTexas Health Resources
BarnesCare

BarnesCare

5000 Manchester Ave, St Louis, Missouri, undefined, US

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.barnescare.com/
763/1000Fair

BarnesCare is the occupational medicine division of BJC HealthCare. BarnesCare has worked with St. Louis businesses since 1946, applying the best occupational medicine to evaluate and treat your employees. Our goal is to keep your employees healthy and safe by working ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:19
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Texas Health Resources

Texas Health Resources

612 E Lamar Blvd, Arlington, US

Last Update: 10/07/2026

View Profile
529/1000Critical

At Texas Health Resources, our mission is to improve the health of the people in the communities we serve. We are one of the largest faith-based, nonprofit health systems in the United States with a team of more than 28,000 employees of wholly owned/operated facilities...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:16,844
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BarnesCare

BarnesCare

-
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
Texas Health Resources

Texas Health Resources

-
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 BarnesCare in 2026.

Incidents

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

Texas Health Resources has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

BarnesCare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Texas Health Resources (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Health Resources 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...
BarnesCare

BarnesCare

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Texas Health Resources

Texas Health Resources

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CONTEXDEL1770338879
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CON1770309774
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TEX1783708025

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8