Comparison Overview

CVS Health

VS

Banner Health

CVS Health

1 CVS Drive, None, Woonsocket, RI, US, 02895
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

CVS Health is the leading health solutions company, delivering care like no one else can. We reach more people and improve the health of communities across America through our local presence, digital channels and over 300,000 dedicated colleagues – including more than 40,000 physicians, pharmacists, nurses and nurse practitioners. Wherever and whenever people need us, we help them with their health – whether that’s managing chronic diseases, staying compliant with their medications or accessing affordable health and wellness services in the most convenient ways. We help people navigate the health care system – and their personal health care – by improving access, lowering costs and being a trusted partner for every meaningful moment of health. And we do it all with heart, each and every day. Follow @CVSHealth on social media.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 127,766
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Banner Health

2901 N Central Ave., None, Phoenix, AZ, US, 85012
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Headquartered in Arizona, Banner Health is one of the largest nonprofit health care systems in the country. The system owns and operates 33 acute-care hospitals, Banner Health Network, Banner – University Medicine, academic and employed physician groups, long-term care centers, outpatient surgery centers and an array of other services; including Banner Urgent Care, family clinics, home care and hospice services, pharmacies and a nursing registry. Banner Health is in six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada and Wyoming.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 34,176
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cvshealth.jpeg
CVS Health
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
CVS Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Banner Health
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for CVS Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Banner Health in 2025.

Incident History — CVS Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CVS Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Banner Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banner Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cvshealth.jpeg
CVS Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Human Error
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Internal System Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/banner-health.jpeg
Banner Health
Incidents

FAQ

CVS Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Banner Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

CVS Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Banner Health company.

In the current year, Banner Health company and CVS Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Banner Health company nor CVS Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

CVS Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Banner Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Banner Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while CVS Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CVS Health company nor Banner Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CVS Health nor Banner Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CVS Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Banner Health company.

CVS Health company employs more people globally than Banner Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither CVS Health nor Banner Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CVS Health nor Banner Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CVS Health nor Banner Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CVS Health nor Banner Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CVS Health nor Banner Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CVS Health nor Banner Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H