Comparison Overview

Conifer Health Solutions

VS

Queensland Health

Conifer Health Solutions

3560 Dallas Parkway, Frisco, Texas, US, 75034
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 700 and 749

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: 7,553
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Queensland Health

33 Charlotte Street, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-24

Queensland Health is the state's largest healthcare provider. We are committed to ensuring all Queenslanders have access to a range of public healthcare services aimed at achieving good health and well-being. Through a network of 16 Hospital and Health Services, as well as the Mater Hospitals, Queensland Health delivers a range of integrated services including hospital inpatient, outpatient and emergency services, community and mental health services, aged care services and public health and health promotion programs.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 44,763
Subsidiaries: 62
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/queensland-health.jpeg
Queensland Health
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
Queensland Health
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 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Queensland Health in 2025.

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

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

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

Queensland Health 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: 08/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email Account Compromise
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

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

Date Detected: 1/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access (Email Account Compromise)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/queensland-health.jpeg
Queensland Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Queensland Health 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 Queensland Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Queensland Health company and Conifer Health Solutions company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Queensland Health company nor Conifer Health Solutions company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Conifer Health Solutions company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Queensland Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions company nor Queensland Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor Queensland Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Queensland Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Conifer Health Solutions company.

Queensland Health company employs more people globally than Conifer Health Solutions company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor Queensland Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor Queensland Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor Queensland Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor Queensland Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor Queensland Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Conifer Health Solutions nor Queensland Health 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