Comparison Overview

BayCare Health System

VS

Nova Scotia Health Authority

BayCare Health System

2985 Drew St, Clearwater, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

BayCare is a leading not-for-profit academic health care system that connects individuals and families to a wide range of services at 16 hospitals, including a children’s hospital, and hundreds of other convenient locations throughout the Tampa Bay and central Florida regions. The system is West Central Florida's largest provider of behavioral health and pediatric services and its provider group, BayCare Medical Group, is one of the largest in the region. BayCare's diverse network of ambulatory services includes laboratories, imaging, surgical centers, BayCare Urgent Care locations, wellness centers and one of Florida's largest home care agencies, BayCare HomeCare. BayCare's mission is to improve the health of all it serves through community-owned, health care services that set the standard for high-quality, compassionate care. For more information, visit BayCare.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,110
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Nova Scotia Health Authority

1276 South Park Street, Halifax, B3H 2Y9, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

We are Nova Scotia Health. We are rural and urban. We are in hospitals, health centres and community. We serve individuals and communities from Yarmouth to Cape Breton, from Amherst to Halifax, and everything in between. We are researchers and learners, looking for new ways to prevent and treat disease and maintain health. We are partners – with community groups, schools, government, foundations and auxiliaries, community health boards and, most importantly, with you. Most of all, we are a community of caring, compassionate people who care deeply about health, healing and learning. Together with you, we will create a healthier Nova Scotia. Mission: Working together to achieve excellence in health, healing and learning Vision: Healthy people, healthy communities – for generations

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 10,484
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/baycare-health-system.jpeg
BayCare Health System
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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nsha.jpeg
Nova Scotia Health Authority
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
BayCare Health System
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Nova Scotia Health Authority
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 BayCare Health System in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Nova Scotia Health Authority in 2026.

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

BayCare Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Nova Scotia Health Authority (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nova Scotia Health Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/baycare-health-system.jpeg
BayCare Health System
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nsha.jpeg
Nova Scotia Health Authority
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2017
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

BayCare Health System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Nova Scotia Health Authority company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Nova Scotia Health Authority company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas BayCare Health System company has not reported any.

In the current year, Nova Scotia Health Authority company and BayCare Health System company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Nova Scotia Health Authority company nor BayCare Health System company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Nova Scotia Health Authority company has disclosed at least one data breach, while BayCare Health System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Nova Scotia Health Authority company nor BayCare Health System company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BayCare Health System company nor Nova Scotia Health Authority company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BayCare Health System nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither BayCare Health System company nor Nova Scotia Health Authority company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

BayCare Health System company employs more people globally than Nova Scotia Health Authority company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither BayCare Health System nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BayCare Health System nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BayCare Health System nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BayCare Health System nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BayCare Health System nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BayCare Health System nor Nova Scotia Health Authority 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