Comparison Overview

City of Hope

VS

Wellstar Health System

City of Hope

1500 E. Duarte Road, None, Duarte, CA, US, 91010
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 700 and 749

City of Hope's mission is to deliver the cures of tomorrow to the people who need them today. Founded in 1913, City of Hope has grown into one of the largest cancer research and treatment organizations in the U.S. and one of the leading research centers for diabetes and other life-threatening illnesses. City of Hope research has been the basis for numerous breakthrough cancer medicines, as well as human synthetic insulin and monoclonal antibodies. With an independent, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center at its core, City of Hope brings a uniquely integrated model to patients spanning cancer care, research and development, academics and training, and innovation initiatives. City of Hope’s growing national system includes its Los Angeles campus, a network of clinical care locations across Southern California, a new cancer center in Orange County, California, and treatment facilities in Atlanta, Chicago and Phoenix. City of Hope’s affiliated group of organizations includes Translational Genomics Research Institute and AccessHope™.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,858
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Wellstar Health System

Marietta, 30062, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

At Wellstar Health System, our mission is to enhance the health and well-being of every person we serve. Nationally ranked and locally recognized for our high-quality care, inclusive culture and world-class doctors and caregivers, Wellstar is one of the largest, most integrated healthcare systems in Georgia. Our specialists and primary care providers work in a multidisciplinary environment with nearly 30,000 diverse team members throughout our hospitals, health parks and medical offices. Communities can also access our outpatient centers, a pediatric center, nursing centers, and hospice and home care services. We’re proud to be home to the second-largest Emergency Department in the country, as well as being the only system in Georgia operating multiple trauma centers. We’re also known for our exceptional work culture, featured on the Great Places to Work®, Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For® and the Seramount Best Company for Multicultural Women® lists. We continue to attract the best and the brightest in healthcare. At a time when our industry is changing rapidly, Wellstar remains committed to exceeding expectations from our patients and team members, while transforming healthcare delivery. We stand behind our values to serve with compassion, pursue excellence and honor every voice.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 18,766
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/city-of-hope.jpeg
City of Hope
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/wellstar-health-system.jpeg
Wellstar Health System
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
City of Hope
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Wellstar Health System
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 City of Hope in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Wellstar Health System in 2026.

Incident History — City of Hope (X = Date, Y = Severity)

City of Hope cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Wellstar Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/city-of-hope.jpeg
City of Hope
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wellstar-health-system.jpeg
Wellstar Health System
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Wellstar Health System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to City of Hope company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

City of Hope company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Wellstar Health System company.

In the current year, Wellstar Health System company and City of Hope company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Wellstar Health System company nor City of Hope company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Wellstar Health System company and City of Hope company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

City of Hope company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Wellstar Health System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither City of Hope company nor Wellstar Health System company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither City of Hope nor Wellstar Health System holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Wellstar Health System company and City of Hope company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Wellstar Health System company employs more people globally than City of Hope company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither City of Hope nor Wellstar Health System holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Wellstar Health System holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Wellstar Health System holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Wellstar Health System holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Wellstar Health System holds HIPAA certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Wellstar Health System 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