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

Comparison Overview

Covenant HealthCovenant Health
VS
Bon Secours Mercy HealthBon Secours Mercy Health
Covenant Health

Covenant Health

3615 19th Street, Lubbock, 79410, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
655/1000Weak

Covenant Health is a member of St. Joseph Health System, one of the most successful not-for-profit health systems in the United States. It was founded in 1998 through the merger of two of Lubbock's most venerable health care facilities, St. Mary of the Plains Hospital a...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:2,700
Subsidiaries:29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Bon Secours Mercy Health

Bon Secours Mercy Health

Cincinnati, 45237, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://bsmhealth.org/
785/1000Fair

On September 1, 2018 Bon Secours Health System and Mercy Health combined to become the United States’ fifth largest Catholic health care ministry and one of the nation’s 20 largest health care systems. With 48 hospitals, thousands of providers, over 1,000 points of care...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:31,593
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Covenant Health

Covenant 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
Bon Secours Mercy Health

Bon Secours Mercy 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 Covenant Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Bon Secours Mercy Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - Bon Secours Mercy Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bon Secours Mercy 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...
Covenant Health

Covenant Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
COV1767361247
Bon Secours Mercy Health

Bon Secours Mercy Health

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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