Comparison Overview

Community Health Systems

VS

Houston Methodist

Community Health Systems

4000 Meridian Boulevard, None, Franklin, TN, US, 37067
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 650 and 699

Community Health Systems is one of the nation’s leading healthcare providers. Developing and operating healthcare delivery systems across 14 states, CHS is committed to helping people get well and live healthier. CHS affiliates operate 70 acute-care hospitals and more than 1,000 other sites of care, including physician practices, urgent care centers, freestanding emergency departments, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers and ambulatory surgery centers.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 23,751
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Houston Methodist

6565 Fannin St, Houston, Texas, 77030, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Houston Methodist is one of the nation’s leading health systems and academic medical centers. The health system consists of eight hospitals: Houston Methodist Hospital, its flagship academic hospital in the Texas Medical Center, seven community hospitals and one long-term acute care hospital throughout the Greater Houston metropolitan area. Houston Methodist also includes a research institute; a comprehensive residency program; international patient services; freestanding comprehensive care, emergency care and imaging centers; and outpatient facilities. Houston Methodist employs more than 34,000 people. Come lead with us.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 18,441
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/community-health-systems.jpeg
Community Health Systems
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/houston-methodist.jpeg
Houston Methodist
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
Community Health Systems
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Houston Methodist
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 Community Health Systems in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Houston Methodist in 2025.

Incident History — Community Health Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Community Health Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Houston Methodist (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Houston Methodist cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/community-health-systems.jpeg
Community Health Systems
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Zero-day vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 01/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2014
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: External Criminal Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/houston-methodist.jpeg
Houston Methodist
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2017
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Houston Methodist company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Community Health Systems company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Community Health Systems company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Houston Methodist company.

In the current year, Houston Methodist company and Community Health Systems company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Houston Methodist company nor Community Health Systems company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Community Health Systems company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Houston Methodist company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Community Health Systems company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Houston Methodist company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Community Health Systems company nor Houston Methodist company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Houston Methodist holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Community Health Systems company nor Houston Methodist company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Community Health Systems company employs more people globally than Houston Methodist company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Houston Methodist holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Houston Methodist holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Houston Methodist holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Houston Methodist holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Houston Methodist holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Houston Methodist 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