Comparison Overview

Beth Israel Lahey Health

VS

UCHealth

Beth Israel Lahey Health

None
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Beth Israel Lahey Health is a new, integrated system providing patients with better care wherever they are. Care informed by world-class research and education. We are doctors and nurses, technicians and social workers, innovators and educators, and so many others. All with a shared vision for what health care can and should be.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 28,316
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

UCHealth

12401 E. 17th Avenue, Human Resources, Aurora, CO, US, 80045
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

At UCHealth, we do things differently. We strive to promote individual and community health and leave no question unanswered along the way. We’re driven to improve and optimize health care. Our network of nationally-recognized hospitals, clinic locations and health care providers extends throughout Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. We deliver excellent care close to home, no matter where you might live. Our success is defined by more than our patient volumes or treatment outcomes. It’s about building a team of exceptional people, from our clinical staff to our expert physicians, who consistently do what is right for the individuals we are honored to serve. UCHealth, a 501(c) (3) health system, was formed in 2012 to increase access to innovative and advanced patient care, realize supply chain and IT efficiencies, and to better serve patients throughout the Rocky Mountain region by combining academic-based and community-focused medicine. Together, the clinics and hospitals within UCHealth can offer the most advanced treatments to improve the lives of patients and their families in Colorado and beyond.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,518
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beth-israel-lahey-health.jpeg
Beth Israel Lahey Health
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/uchealth.jpeg
UCHealth
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
Beth Israel Lahey Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UCHealth
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 Beth Israel Lahey Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for UCHealth in 2025.

Incident History — Beth Israel Lahey Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Beth Israel Lahey Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — UCHealth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UCHealth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beth-israel-lahey-health.jpeg
Beth Israel Lahey Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2014
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uchealth.jpeg
UCHealth
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to Diligent Software
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Beth Israel Lahey Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to UCHealth company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Beth Israel Lahey Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to UCHealth company.

In the current year, UCHealth company and Beth Israel Lahey Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither UCHealth company nor Beth Israel Lahey Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

UCHealth company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Beth Israel Lahey Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Beth Israel Lahey Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while UCHealth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health company nor UCHealth company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCHealth holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Beth Israel Lahey Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to UCHealth company.

Beth Israel Lahey Health company employs more people globally than UCHealth company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCHealth holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCHealth holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCHealth holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCHealth holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCHealth holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCHealth 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