Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Baylor Scott & White HealthBaylor Scott & White Health
VS
UC San Diego HealthUC San Diego Health
Baylor Scott & White Health

Baylor Scott & White Health

3500 Gaston Ave, Dallas, 75246, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://bswhealth.com
793/1000Fair

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...

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
UC San Diego Health

UC San Diego Health

200 West Arbor Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92103

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

UC San Diego Health and Health Sciences has been caring for the community for almost 60 years. In 1966, we established our first medical center. Two years later, in 1968, UC San Diego School of Medicine opened for business. Today, UC San Diego Health is the only acade...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:10,692
Subsidiaries:56
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Baylor Scott & White Health

Baylor Scott & White Health

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
UC San Diego Health

UC San Diego Health

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Baylor Scott & White Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for UC San Diego Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - UC San Diego Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UC San Diego Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Baylor Scott & White Health

Baylor Scott & White Health

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UC San Diego Health

UC San Diego Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UCS108072625
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UCS1014070724
🔒 Incident : Breach
UCS1016090725

FAQ

Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health company and UC San Diego Health company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health and UC San Diego Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health and UC San Diego Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Baylor Scott & White Health or UC San Diego Health ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Baylor Scott & White Health or UC San Diego Health ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health and UC San Diego Health, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Baylor Scott & White Health and UC San Diego Health, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8