Comparison Overview

Beth Israel Lahey Health

VS

UCSF Health

Beth Israel Lahey Health

None
Last Update: 2026-01-21
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bilh.org

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: 28,986
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
View Profile

UCSF Health

505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, 94143, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ucsfhealth.org

UCSF Health is an integrated health care network encompassing several entities, including UCSF Medical Center, one of the nation’s top 10 hospitals according to U.S. News & World Report, and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, with campuses in Oakland and San Francisco. We are recognized throughout the world for our innovative patient care, advanced technology and pioneering research. For more than a century, we have offered the highest quality medical treatment. Today, our expertise covers virtually all specialties, from cancer to women's health. In addition, the compassionate care provided by our doctors, nurses and other staff is a key to our success. Our services generate about 1.1 million patient visits to our clinics a year and $3.2 billion in annual revenue. We have 12,000 employees and dozens of locations throughout San Francisco as well as outreach clinics throughout Northern California and beyond.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,303
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

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/ucsfhealth.jpeg
UCSF 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
Compliance Summary
Beth Israel Lahey Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UCSF Health
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 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for UCSF Health in 2026.

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 — UCSF Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UCSF Health 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: 07/2014
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ucsfhealth.jpeg
UCSF Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Motivation: Unknown
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

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

UCSF Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Beth Israel Lahey Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

UCSF Health 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 UCSF Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCSF Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health nor UCSF Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References