Comparison Overview

Detroit Medical Center

VS

UHS

Detroit Medical Center

3990 John R, Detroit, 48201, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

The Detroit Medical Center’s (DMC) record of service has provided medical excellence throughout the history of the Metropolitan Detroit area. From the founding of Children’s Hospital in 1886, to the creation of the first mechanical heart at Harper Hospital 50 years ago, to our compassion for the underserved, our legacy of caring is unmatched. Our medical experts are nationally recognized and each year, hundreds of DMC doctors are included in the list of America’s Best Doctors™. A reputation for excellence draws patients to world-class programs in oncology, organ transplant, cardiology, women’s services, neurosciences, stroke treatment, optometry, orthopaedics, pediatrics and rehabilitation. We are the leading academically integrated system in metropolitan Detroit and the largest health care provider in southeast Michigan. The DMC has more than 2,000 licensed beds and 3,000 affiliated physicians. Detroit Medical Center facilities employ best practices and conduct business in an atmosphere of respect and professionalism. Our recognition of and attention to diversity in our business operations and healthcare services in unparalleled. Our volunteer efforts in health education and disease prevention represent an ongoing commitment to the health and well-being of the communities we serve. The DMC continues to meet the health care needs of a growing community, offering the best in medical research and development, advanced technology and optimum clinical services.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 8,705
Subsidiaries: 46
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2

UHS

367 S Gulph Rd, King of Prussia, 19406, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

One of the nation’s largest and most respected providers of hospital and healthcare services, Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE: UHS) has built an impressive record of achievement and performance, growing since its inception into a Fortune 300 corporation. Headquartered in King of Prussia, PA, UHS has 99,000 employees. Through its subsidiaries, UHS operates 29 acute care hospitals, 331 behavioral health facilities, 60 outpatient and other facilities in 39 U.S. States, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. www.uhs.com UHS is a registered trademark of UHS of Delaware, Inc., a subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. Universal Health Services, Inc. is a holding company that operates through its subsidiaries. All healthcare and management operations are conducted by subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. To the extent there is any reference to “UHS” or “UHS facilities” on this website, including any statements, articles or other publications contained herein which relates to healthcare or management operations, they are referring to Universal Health Services, Inc.’s subsidiaries. Further, the terms “we,” “us,” “our” or “the company” in such context similarly refer to the operations of the subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. Any reference to employment at UHS or employees of UHS refers to employment with one of the subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/detroitmedicalcenter.jpeg
Detroit Medical Center
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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uhs.jpeg
UHS
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
Detroit Medical Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UHS
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Detroit Medical Center in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for UHS in 2026.

Incident History — Detroit Medical Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Detroit Medical Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — UHS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UHS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/detroitmedicalcenter.jpeg
Detroit Medical Center
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Business Email Compromise (BEC)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Account Compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malicious Code Injection
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uhs.jpeg
UHS
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Unauthorised Data Access and System Encryption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Detroit Medical Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to UHS company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Detroit Medical Center company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to UHS company.

In the current year, UHS company and Detroit Medical Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Both UHS company and Detroit Medical Center company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Detroit Medical Center company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other UHS company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither UHS company nor Detroit Medical Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Detroit Medical Center company nor UHS company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Detroit Medical Center nor UHS holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Detroit Medical Center company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to UHS company.

UHS company employs more people globally than Detroit Medical Center company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Detroit Medical Center nor UHS holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Detroit Medical Center nor UHS holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Detroit Medical Center nor UHS holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Detroit Medical Center nor UHS holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Detroit Medical Center nor UHS holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Detroit Medical Center nor UHS holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N