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

Comparison Overview

Cottage HealthCottage Health
VS
Adventist HealthAdventist Health
Cottage Health

Cottage Health

Pueblo at Bath Street, Santa Barbara, 93102, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
699/1000Weak

Mission Statement: To provide superior health care for and improve the health of our communities through a commitment to our core values of excellence, integrity, and compassion. Founded in 1888, the not-for-profit Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital has been serving the co...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:2,478
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
Adventist Health

Adventist Health

1 Adventist Health Way, Roseville, CA, US, 95661

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

Adventist Health is a faith-inspired, nonprofit integrated health system serving more than 100 communities on the West Coast and Hawaii with over 440 sites of care. Founded on Adventist heritage and values, Adventist Health provides care in hospitals, clinics, home care...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:15,656
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cottage Health

Cottage 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
Adventist Health

Adventist 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)

Cottage Health has 29.08% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Adventist Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

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

Adventist 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...
Cottage Health

Cottage Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
COT1770840181
🔒 Incident : Breach
COT627072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
COT743072525
Adventist Health

Adventist Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ADV2021111222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA