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

Comparison Overview

Covenant Health (MA)Covenant Health (MA)
VS
AscensionAscension
Covenant Health (MA)

Covenant Health (MA)

40 Shattuck Rd, Andover, 01810, US

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
528/1000Critical

Covenant Health is a Catholic health care system sponsoring hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living residences and other health and elder services throughout New England. We are committed to the health of the individuals and communities we serve, and strive to offer a...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:193
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
Ascension

Ascension

101 South Hanley Rd., St. Louis, 63105, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.ascension.org/
100/1000Critical

Answering God's call to bring health, healing and hope to all. Ascension is one of the nation’s leading non-profit and Catholic health systems, with a Mission of delivering compassionate, personalized care to all, with special attention to those most vulnerable. In FY...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:66,548
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Covenant Health (MA)

Covenant Health (MA)

-
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
Ascension

Ascension

-
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 (MA) in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - Ascension (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ascension 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 (MA)

Covenant Health (MA)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
COV1769001816
🔒 Incident : Breach
COV1767368230
🔒 Incident : Breach
COV1767368358
Ascension

Ascension

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ASC1773764792
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASC220051225
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ASC000032225

FAQ

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