Comparison Overview

Brigham and Women's Hospital

VS

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Brigham and Women's Hospital

US
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) is an international leader in virtually every area of medicine and has been the site of pioneering breakthroughs that have improved lives around the world. A major teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, BWH has a legacy of excellence that continues to grow. With two outstanding hospitals, over 150 outpatient practices, and over 1,200 physicians, we serve patients from New England, throughout the United States, and from 120 countries around the world. The BWH name is a reflection of our history. In 1980 three of Boston’s oldest and most prestigious Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals - the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, the Robert Breck Brigham Hospital, and the Boston Hospital for Women – merged to form Brigham and Women’s Hospital. As a national leader in improving health care quality and safety, we have helped to develop some of the industry’s best practices including computerized physician order entry (CPOE) to prevent medication errors. The CPOE is now a nationally-accepted safety practice. The BWH Biomedical Research Institute (BRI) is one of the most powerful biomedical research institutes in the world and the second largest recipient of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among independent hospitals in the United States. BWH has long had great success in research as measured by the number of important discoveries made, the size and scope of its research portfolio and the volume of publications annually. BWH is a training ground for physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals. We have 1,100 trainees in over 140 of the most sought after training programs in the world, and also host Harvard Medical School students in rotations throughout our programs. As our global health services expand, our clinical trainees have rich opportunities to contribute and learn in challenging environments around the world. Brigham and Women's Hospital is an EEO, AA, VEVRAA Employer.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,364
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

UT Southwestern Medical Center

5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas, 75390, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

UT Southwestern is an academic medical center, world-renowned for its research, regarded among the best in the country for medical education and for clinical and scientific training, and nationally recognized for the quality of care its faculty provides to patients at UT Southwestern’s University Hospital & Clinics and affiliated institutions. The Medical Center includes three degree-granting institutions: UT Southwestern Medical School, UT Southwestern Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, and UT Southwestern School of Health Professions. - The schools train nearly 3,700 medical, graduate, and health profession students, residents, and postdoctoral fellows each year. - Ongoing support from federal agencies, along with foundations, individuals, and corporations, provides more than $524 million per year to fund faculty research. - UT Southwestern physicians provide care in about 80 specialties to more than 117,000 hospitalized patients, more than 360,000 emergency room cases, and oversee nearly 3 million outpatient visits a year. - UT Southwestern has approximately 25,000 employees and an operating budget of $3.7 billion. - In U.S. News & World Report’s America’s Best Hospitals 2023-2024 guide, UT Southwestern is ranked the No. 1 hospital in Texas (tie) – and a top 20 hospital in the nation. Additionally, UTSW is nationally ranked in nine specialty-care areas: Cancer; Cardiology, Heart & Vascular Surgery; Diabetes & Endocrinology; Ear, Nose & Throat; Gastroenterology & GI Surgery; Geriatrics; Neurology & Neurosurgery; Obstetrics & Gynecology; Pulmonology & Lung Surgery; Rehabilitation; and Urology.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 17,558
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brigham-and-women's-hospital.jpeg
Brigham and Women's 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/utsw.jpeg
UT Southwestern Medical Center
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
Brigham and Women's Hospital
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UT Southwestern Medical Center
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 Brigham and Women's Hospital in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for UT Southwestern Medical Center in 2026.

Incident History — Brigham and Women's Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brigham and Women's Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — UT Southwestern Medical Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UT Southwestern Medical Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brigham-and-women's-hospital.jpeg
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Incidents

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

Date Detected: 11/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Human Error
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/utsw.jpeg
UT Southwestern Medical Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Brigham and Women's Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to UT Southwestern Medical Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Brigham and Women's Hospital company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas UT Southwestern Medical Center company has not reported any.

In the current year, UT Southwestern Medical Center company and Brigham and Women's Hospital company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither UT Southwestern Medical Center company nor Brigham and Women's Hospital company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Brigham and Women's Hospital company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other UT Southwestern Medical Center company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither UT Southwestern Medical Center company nor Brigham and Women's Hospital company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital company nor UT Southwestern Medical Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital nor UT Southwestern Medical Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UT Southwestern Medical Center company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Brigham and Women's Hospital company.

UT Southwestern Medical Center company employs more people globally than Brigham and Women's Hospital company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital nor UT Southwestern Medical Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital nor UT Southwestern Medical Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital nor UT Southwestern Medical Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital nor UT Southwestern Medical Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital nor UT Southwestern Medical Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Brigham and Women's Hospital nor UT Southwestern Medical Center 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