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

Comparison Overview

Consonus RehabConsonus Rehab
VS
Alberta Health ServicesAlberta Health Services
Consonus Rehab

Consonus Rehab

N/A

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
778/1000Fair

Focused on improving quality of life by providing rehabilitation needs in skilled nursing facilities and now offering wellness services to residents in senior housing communities.

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services

10030 – 107 Street NW, Edmonton, T5J 3E4, CA

Last Update: 06/05/2026

View Profile
704/1000Moderate

Alberta Health Services (AHS) is proud to be part of Canada’s first and largest provincewide, integrated health system, responsible for delivering health services to more than 4.5 million people living in Alberta, as well as occasionally to some residents of other provi...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:46,105
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Consonus Rehab

Consonus Rehab

-
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
Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services

-
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 Consonus Rehab in 2026.

Incidents

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

Alberta Health Services has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Consonus Rehab (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Consonus Rehab cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Alberta Health Services 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...
Consonus Rehab

Consonus Rehab

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Alberta Health Services

Alberta Health Services

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ALB1778099579
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
ALB1558121222
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
ALB31917423

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8