Comparison Overview

CHI

VS

Emory Healthcare

CHI

198 Inverness Drive West, Englewood, CO, US, 80112
Last Update: 2025-11-24

Catholic Health Initiatives, a nonprofit, faith-based health system formed in 1996 through the consolidation of four Catholic health systems, expresses its mission each day by creating and nurturing healthy communities in the hundreds of sites across the nation where we provide care. One of the nation’s largest nonprofit health systems, Englewood, Colo.-based CHI operates in 18 states and comprises 100 hospitals, including two academic health centers, major teaching hospitals and 30 critical-access facilities; community health-services organizations; accredited nursing colleges; home-health agencies; living communities; and other facilities and services that span the inpatient and outpatient continuum of care. In fiscal year 2018, CHI provided more than $1.14 billion in financial assistance and community benefit for programs and services for the poor, free clinics, education and research. Financial assistance and community benefit totaled approximately $2.1 billion with the inclusion of the unpaid costs of Medicare. The health system, which generated operating revenues of $15 billion in fiscal year 2018, has total assets of approximately $20.5 billion. Learn more at www.catholichealthinitiatives.org

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,730
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
4

Emory Healthcare

Emory University Hospital, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, US, 30322
Last Update: 2025-11-26

Emory Healthcare is the most comprehensive health care system in Georgia. We offer 11 hospitals, the Emory Clinic, more than 250 provider locations, and more than 2,800 physicians specializing in 70 different medical subspecialties. Meaning we can provide treatments and services that may not be available at local community hospitals. That's the Emory Difference.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 16,255
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/catholic-health-initiatives.jpeg
CHI
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/emory-healthcare.jpeg
Emory 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
CHI
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Emory 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 CHI in 2025.

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

Emory Healthcare has 33.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — CHI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CHI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Emory Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Emory Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/catholic-health-initiatives.jpeg
CHI
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

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

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/emory-healthcare.jpeg
Emory Healthcare
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party Service Provider
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/1990
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Loss of backup data discs
Blog: Blog

FAQ

CHI company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Emory Healthcare company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

CHI company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Emory Healthcare company.

In the current year, Emory Healthcare company has reported more cyber incidents than CHI company.

CHI company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Emory Healthcare company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Emory Healthcare company and CHI company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Both Emory Healthcare company and CHI company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither CHI company nor Emory Healthcare company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CHI nor Emory Healthcare holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CHI company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Emory Healthcare company.

CHI company employs more people globally than Emory Healthcare company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither CHI nor Emory Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CHI nor Emory Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CHI nor Emory Healthcare holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CHI nor Emory Healthcare holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CHI nor Emory Healthcare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CHI nor Emory Healthcare holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H