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

Comparison Overview

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
VS
PiedmontPiedmont
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, GB, CB2 0GG

Last Update: 29/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.cuh.nhs.uk
714/1000Moderate

Cambridge University Hospitals (CUH) is one of the largest and best known Trusts in the country. As the local hospital for our community we deliver care through Addenbrooke’s and the Rosie hospitals offering general, specialist, women’s and maternity care respectively...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:5,184
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Piedmont

Piedmont

1968 Peachtree Road NW, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30309

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.piedmont.org
786/1000Fair

Piedmont is empowering Georgians by changing health care. We continue to fuel Georgia’s growth through safe, cost-effective, high-quality care close to home through an integrated health care system that provides a hassle-free, unified experience. We are a private, not-f...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:18,842
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

-
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
Piedmont

Piedmont

-
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)

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has 28.06% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Piedmont in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Piedmont (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Piedmont cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ADDCAMJOH1782736148
Piedmont

Piedmont

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1