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

Comparison Overview

DaVita InternationalDaVita International
VS
Johns Hopkins MedicineJohns Hopkins Medicine
DaVita International

DaVita International

Chiswick Business Park, 566 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5YG, GB

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
678/1000Weak

The name DaVita is an adaptation of an Italian phrase meaning “giving life.” DaVita teammates give life every day to people living with kidney disease. Since 2011, DaVita International has operated dialysis and specialty kidney care centres in 14 countries outside of ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:168
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Johns Hopkins Medicine

Johns Hopkins Medicine

600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, 21231, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
767/1000Fair

Johns Hopkins Medicine is a governing structure for the University’s School of Medicine and the health system, coordinating their research, teaching, patient care, and related enterprises. The Johns Hopkins Hospital opened in 1889, followed four years later by the u...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:38,347
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DaVita International

DaVita International

-
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
Johns Hopkins Medicine

Johns Hopkins Medicine

-
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 DaVita International in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Johns Hopkins Medicine in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DaVita International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DaVita International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Johns Hopkins Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johns Hopkins Medicine 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...
DaVita International

DaVita International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DAV4502145092325
Johns Hopkins Medicine

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOH1036072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2