Comparison Overview

Conifer Health Solutions

VS

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Conifer Health Solutions

3560 Dallas Parkway, Frisco, 75034, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 650 and 699

For over 35 years, Conifer Health has partnered with health systems, hospitals, physician groups, and employers to deliver tailored, technology-enabled revenue cycle and value-based care solutions that improve financial performance, enhance the care experience, and reduce the cost to collect. Supporting more than 600 clients and managing over $32 billion in NPR annually, we operate with a “by operators, for operators” mindset — combining deep operational expertise with intelligent automation, advanced analytics, and a mature global delivery model. Our commitment is simple: deliver on client goals with full transparency and measurable outcomes at every step.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 7,666
Subsidiaries: 43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2

MD Anderson Cancer Center

1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, 77030, US
Last Update: 2026-01-15
Between 750 and 799

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is one of the world's most respected centers devoted exclusively to cancer patient care, research, education and prevention. MD Anderson provides cancer care at several convenient locations throughout the Greater Houston Area and collaborates with community hospitals and health systems nationwide through MD Anderson Cancer Network®. U.S. News & World Report's "Best Hospitals"​ survey has ranked MD Anderson the nation's top hospital for cancer care. Every year since the survey began in 1990, MD Anderson has been named one of the top two cancer hospitals. The recognition reflects the passion of our 21,000 extraordinary employees and 1,000 volunteers for providing exceptional care to our patients and their families, and for realizing our mission to #EndCancer. You can view all of our career opportunities at careers.mdanderson.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,634
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/conifer-health-solutions.jpeg
Conifer Health Solutions
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/mdandersoncancercenter.jpeg
MD Anderson Cancer Center
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
Conifer Health Solutions
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MD Anderson Cancer Center
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 Conifer Health Solutions in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2026.

Incident History — Conifer Health Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Conifer Health Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — MD Anderson Cancer Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MD Anderson Cancer Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/conifer-health-solutions.jpeg
Conifer Health Solutions
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Business Email Compromise (BEC)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Account Compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malicious Code Injection
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mdandersoncancercenter.jpeg
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

MD Anderson Cancer Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Conifer Health Solutions company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Conifer Health Solutions company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas MD Anderson Cancer Center company has not reported any.

In the current year, MD Anderson Cancer Center company and Conifer Health Solutions company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Conifer Health Solutions company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while MD Anderson Cancer Center company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Conifer Health Solutions company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other MD Anderson Cancer Center company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center company nor Conifer Health Solutions company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions company nor MD Anderson Cancer Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Conifer Health Solutions company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MD Anderson Cancer Center company.

MD Anderson Cancer Center company employs more people globally than Conifer Health Solutions company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor MD Anderson Cancer Center 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