Comparison Overview

Baylor Scott & White Health

VS

Fortis Healthcare

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

Fortis Healthcare

Tower A, Unitech Business Park, Gurgaon, 122001, IN
Last Update: 2026-01-20

Fortis Healthcare Group is a leading integrated healthcare provider operating across the Asia Pacific region. With more than 20,000 employees and growing, Fortis Helathcare is currently present in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong SAR, India, Mauritius, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, UAE, and Vietnam. The hallmark of Fortis Healthcare, distinguishing us from our contemporaries, is the 'patient-centricity'​ that you will discern all over: in hospital design, services, programmes and most significantly in the caring approach of our people.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 13,590
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/fortis-healthcare.jpeg
Fortis 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
Compliance Summary
Baylor Scott & White Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Fortis Healthcare
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 Fortis Healthcare 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 — Fortis Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fortis Healthcare 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/fortis-healthcare.jpeg
Fortis Healthcare
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Fortis Healthcare company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Baylor Scott & White Health company.

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

Neither Fortis Healthcare company nor Baylor Scott & White Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Fortis Healthcare company nor Baylor Scott & White Health company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Fortis Healthcare company nor Baylor Scott & White Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Fortis Healthcare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Baylor Scott & White Health nor Fortis Healthcare 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