Comparison Overview

Beverly Hospital

VS

Mass General Brigham

Beverly Hospital

85 Herrick Street, Beverly, 01915, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20

Beverly Hospital, part of Beth Israel Lahey Health, is a full service, community hospital providing quality, patient-centered care to North Shore and Cape Ann residents. Services include maternity, pediatrics, surgical, orthopedics, cardiology, rehabilitation as well as other specialties. The hospital boasts a medical staff of more than 600 physicians and its service area includes 13 communities. Addison Gilbert Hospital is a full-service, 79-bed medical acute care facility located in Gloucester, Massachusetts. The hospital was founded in 1889 and to this day provides state-of-the-art inpatient and outpatient care to residents of the Cape Ann community. Beverly and Addison Gilbert Hospitals are a member of Lahey Health.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 1,469
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Mass General Brigham

399 Revolution Dr, Somerville, Massachusetts, US, 02145
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic health care system, uniting great minds to solve the hardest problems in medicine for our communities and the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care across a system of academic medical centers, community and specialty hospitals, a health insurance plan, physician networks, community health centers, home care, and long-term care services. Mass General Brigham is a nonprofit organization that is committed to patient care, research, teaching, and service to the community. In addition, Mass General Brigham is one of the nation’s leading biomedical research organizations and a principal teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 13,230
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beverly-hospital.jpeg
Beverly Hospital
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/mass-general-brigham.jpeg
Mass General Brigham
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
Beverly Hospital
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mass General Brigham
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 Beverly Hospital in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Mass General Brigham in 2026.

Incident History — Beverly Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Beverly Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mass General Brigham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mass General Brigham cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beverly-hospital.jpeg
Beverly Hospital
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2014
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mass-general-brigham.jpeg
Mass General Brigham
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Human Error
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Beverly Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Mass General Brigham company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Mass General Brigham company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Beverly Hospital company.

In the current year, Mass General Brigham company and Beverly Hospital company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mass General Brigham company nor Beverly Hospital company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Mass General Brigham company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Beverly Hospital company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Mass General Brigham company nor Beverly Hospital company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Beverly Hospital company nor Mass General Brigham company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Beverly Hospital nor Mass General Brigham holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mass General Brigham company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Beverly Hospital company.

Mass General Brigham company employs more people globally than Beverly Hospital company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Beverly Hospital nor Mass General Brigham holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Beverly Hospital nor Mass General Brigham holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Beverly Hospital nor Mass General Brigham holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Beverly Hospital nor Mass General Brigham holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Beverly Hospital nor Mass General Brigham holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Beverly Hospital nor Mass General Brigham 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