Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Conifer Health SolutionsConifer Health Solutions
VS
Trinity HealthTrinity Health
Conifer Health Solutions

Conifer Health Solutions

3560 Dallas Parkway, Frisco, 75034, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://coniferhealth.com
683/1000Weak

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 redu...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:7,666
Subsidiaries:44
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
Trinity Health

Trinity Health

20555 Victor Parkway, Livonia, MI, US, 48152

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
679/1000Weak

Trinity Health is one of the largest not-for-profit, Catholic health care systems in the nation. It is a family of 123,000 colleagues and nearly 27,000 physicians and clinicians caring for diverse communities across 26 states. Nationally recognized for care and experien...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:17,122
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Conifer Health Solutions

Conifer Health Solutions

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Trinity Health

Trinity Health

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Conifer Health Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

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

Trinity Health has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

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

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Trinity Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Trinity Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Conifer Health Solutions

Conifer Health Solutions

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CONCON1766160151
🔒 Incident : Breach
CON23171122
🔒 Incident : Breach
CON721082025
Trinity Health

Trinity Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TRIMOSOCHREI1774651014
🔒 Incident : Breach
TRI1773772378
🔒 Incident : Breach
TRI1002810112025

FAQ

Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions company and Trinity Health company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions and Trinity Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions and Trinity Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Conifer Health Solutions or Trinity Health ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Conifer Health Solutions or Trinity Health ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions and Trinity Health, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Conifer Health Solutions and Trinity Health, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59705
SUMMARY

mem0's openmemory/api component contains an unauthenticated access vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read, write, and delete arbitrary user memories by accessing API routers registered without authentication middleware. Attackers can supply arbitrary user_id parameters or directly access memory retrieval endpoints to expose private memory content, or invoke pause endpoints with global_pause=true to cause denial-of-service across all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59704
SUMMARY

Cap's GET /api/video/ai endpoint fails to validate user ownership or membership before returning private video AI metadata including titles, summaries, and chapters. Authenticated attackers can supply arbitrary video IDs to read sensitive AI-generated content and trigger unauthorized AI generation that consumes the video owner's credits without consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55078
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Starting in version 2.17.0 and prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 adds a metadata preflight check that sums projected entry sizes and a streaming writer that enforces the aggregate limit during decompression. As a workaround, restrict file-upload permissions to trusted users or place a reverse proxy with request-body size limits in front of `coderd`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55077
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, the `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. As a workaround, restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-55076
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2