Comparison Overview

BJC HealthCare

VS

University of Maryland Medical System

BJC HealthCare

4901 Forest Park Ave, St Louis, Missouri, US, 63108
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

As one of the largest nonprofit health care integrated delivery organizations in the country, we are committed to improving the health and well-being of the people and communities we serve through leadership, education, innovation and excellence in medicine. The hospitals that comprise BJC HealthCare have a proud, decades-long history of serving patients and families in communities across Missouri and Illinois. Through innovation and discovery, a deep-rooted sense of collaboration and a determination to help you build healthier habits, we make all that we do available to anyone who needs it. When it comes to your health, we believe that you deserve extraordinary care.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 791
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

University of Maryland Medical System

22 S. Greene St, Baltimore, MD, US, 21201
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

The University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) was created in 1984 when the state-owned University Hospital became a private, nonprofit organization. It has evolved into a multi-hospital system with academic, community and specialty service missions reaching every part of the state and beyond. UMMS is a national and regional referral center for trauma, cancer care, neurocare, cardiac care, women's and children's health and physical rehabilitation. It also has one of the world's largest kidney transplant programs, as well as scores of other programs that improve the physical and mental health of thousands of people daily. The hospitals and health systems that comprise UMMS are: University of Maryland Medical Center University of Maryland Medical Center Midtown Campus UM Rehabilitation and Orthopaedic Institute UM Baltimore Washington Medical Center UM Capital Region Health UM Charles Regional Medical Center UM St. Joseph Medical Center UM Upper Chesapeake Health UM Shore Regional Health Mt. Washington Pediatric Hospital UM Community Medical Group

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,262
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bjc-healthcare.jpeg
BJC HealthCare
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/ummedicalsystem.jpeg
University of Maryland Medical 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
Compliance Summary
BJC HealthCare
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Maryland Medical System
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 BJC HealthCare in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for University of Maryland Medical System in 2025.

Incident History — BJC HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BJC HealthCare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University of Maryland Medical System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Maryland Medical System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bjc-healthcare.jpeg
BJC HealthCare
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Configuration Error
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ummedicalsystem.jpeg
University of Maryland Medical System
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

University of Maryland Medical System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to BJC HealthCare company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

BJC HealthCare company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of Maryland Medical System company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Maryland Medical System company and BJC HealthCare company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Maryland Medical System company nor BJC HealthCare company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

BJC HealthCare company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other University of Maryland Medical System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Maryland Medical System company nor BJC HealthCare company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BJC HealthCare company nor University of Maryland Medical System company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BJC HealthCare nor University of Maryland Medical System holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BJC HealthCare company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Maryland Medical System company.

University of Maryland Medical System company employs more people globally than BJC HealthCare company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither BJC HealthCare nor University of Maryland Medical System holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BJC HealthCare nor University of Maryland Medical System holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BJC HealthCare nor University of Maryland Medical System holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BJC HealthCare nor University of Maryland Medical System holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BJC HealthCare nor University of Maryland Medical System holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BJC HealthCare nor University of Maryland Medical System holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to 1.10.4, some of HedgeDoc's OAuth2 endpoints for social login providers such as Google, GitHub, GitLab, Facebook or Dropbox lack CSRF protection, since they don't send a state parameter and verify the response using this parameter. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.10.4.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

Langflow versions up to and including 1.6.9 contain a chained vulnerability that enables account takeover and remote code execution. An overly permissive CORS configuration (allow_origins='*' with allow_credentials=True) combined with a refresh token cookie configured as SameSite=None allows a malicious webpage to perform cross-origin requests that include credentials and successfully call the refresh endpoint. An attacker-controlled origin can therefore obtain fresh access_token / refresh_token pairs for a victim session. Obtained tokens permit access to authenticated endpoints — including built-in code-execution functionality — allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary code and achieve full system compromise.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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

A vulnerability was detected in xerrors Yuxi-Know up to 0.4.0. This vulnerability affects the function OtherEmbedding.aencode of the file /src/models/embed.py. Performing manipulation of the argument health_url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The patch is named 0ff771dc1933d5a6b78f804115e78a7d8625c3f3. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. The vendor responded with a vulnerability confirmation and a list of security measures they have established already (e.g. disabled URL parsing, disabled URL upload mode, removed URL-to-markdown conversion).

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/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
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Rarlab RAR App up to 7.11 Build 127 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.rarlab.rar. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 7.20 build 128 is able to mitigate this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor responded very professional: "This is the real vulnerability affecting RAR for Android only. WinRAR and Unix RAR versions are not affected. We already fixed it in RAR for Android 7.20 build 128 and we publicly mentioned it in that version changelog. (...) To avoid confusion among users, it would be useful if such disclosure emphasizes that it is RAR for Android only issue and WinRAR isn't affected."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.1
Severity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 2.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/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
Description

A weakness has been identified in ZSPACE Q2C NAS up to 1.1.0210050. Affected by this issue is the function zfilev2_api.OpenSafe of the file /v2/file/safe/open of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. This manipulation of the argument safe_dir causes command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 9.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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