Comparison Overview

Baylor Scott & White Health

VS

Elevance Health

Baylor Scott & White Health

3500 Gaston Ave, Dallas, 75246, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

With us by your side, there's no stopping you. It's why we're creating a new kind of healthcare at Baylor Scott & White. And we're just getting started. As the largest not-for-profit health system in the state of Texas, Baylor Scott & White promotes the health and well-being of every individual, family and community it serves. It is committed to making quality care more accessible, convenient and affordable through its integrated delivery network, which includes the Baylor Scott & White Health Plan, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, the Baylor Scott & White Quality Alliance and its leading digital health platform — MyBSWHealth. Through 52 hospitals and more than 1,300 access points, including flagship academic medical centers in Dallas, Fort Worth and Temple, the system offers the full continuum of care, from primary to award-winning specialty care. Founded as a Christian ministry of healing more than a century ago, Baylor Scott & White today serves more than three million Texans. For more information visit: BSWHealth.com.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 30,629
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Elevance Health

220 Virginia Ave, Indianapolis, Indiana, US, 46204
Last Update: 2026-01-15

Fueled by our bold purpose to improve the health of humanity, we are transforming from a traditional health benefits organization into a lifetime trusted health partner. Our nearly 100,000 associates serve more than 118 million people, at every stage of health. We address a full range of needs with an integrated whole health approach, powered by industry-leading capabilities and a digital platform for health. We believe that improving health for everyone is possible. It begins by redefining health, reimagining the health system, and strengthening our communities.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 42,858
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bswhealth.jpeg
Baylor Scott & White 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/elevance-health.jpeg
Elevance 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
Baylor Scott & White Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Elevance 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 Baylor Scott & White Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Elevance Health in 2026.

Incident History — Baylor Scott & White Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baylor Scott & White Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Elevance Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Elevance Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bswhealth.jpeg
Baylor Scott & White Health
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/elevance-health.jpeg
Elevance Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Elevance Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Baylor Scott & White Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Elevance Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Baylor Scott & White Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Elevance Health company and Baylor Scott & White Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Elevance Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Baylor Scott & White Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Elevance Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Baylor Scott & White Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Elevance Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Baylor Scott & White Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health company nor Elevance Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Elevance Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Elevance Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Baylor Scott & White Health company.

Elevance Health company employs more people globally than Baylor Scott & White Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Elevance Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Elevance Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Elevance Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Elevance Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Elevance Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Elevance Health 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