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

Comparison Overview

eHealth QueenslandeHealth Queensland
VS
PhilipsPhilips
eHealth Queensland

eHealth Queensland

Fortitude Valley, 4006, AU

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
765/1000Fair

eHealth Queensland enables the delivery of health services to the community, supporting the information technology needs of the State’s 16 Hospital and Health Services and the Department of Health. eHealth Queensland’s key functions include: • Develop and provide advic...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:650
Subsidiaries:61
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Philips

Philips

Amstelplein 2, Amsterdam, 1096 BC, NL

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
701/1000Moderate

Over the past decade we have transformed into a focused leader in health technology. At Philips, our purpose is to improve people’s health and well-being through meaningful innovation. We aim to improve 2.5 billion lives per year by 2030, including 400 million in under...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:71,631
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
eHealth Queensland

eHealth Queensland

-
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
Philips

Philips

-
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 eHealth Queensland in 2026.

Incidents

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

Philips has 8.26% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - eHealth Queensland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

eHealth Queensland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Philips 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...
eHealth Queensland

eHealth Queensland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Philips

Philips

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ODI1771093701
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PHI258072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-7654
SUMMARY

The Admin Columns plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection leading to Remote Code Execution in versions up to and including 7.0.18. This is due to the use of `unserialize()` without an `allowed_classes` restriction in the `IdsToCollection::get_ids_from_string()` function, which processes attacker-controlled post meta values without proper validation. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject a serialized PHP object into a post's custom meta field and trigger arbitrary code execution by exploiting a bundled POP gadget chain, resulting in remote code execution as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-7523
SUMMARY

The Alba Board plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to access arbitrary private alba_card post data, including title, description, assignee, due date, tags, and comments, that is intended to be restricted to Administrators and Editors. The handler is registered via the wp_ajax_nopriv_ hook and its nonce is exposed to all site visitors through wp_localize_script on pages containing the [alba_board] shortcode, making this exploitable by unauthenticated users who can access any such page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-45409
SUMMARY

Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) for Python provides support for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) and Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing. In versions prior to 3.15, payloads such as `"\u0660" * N` or `"\u30fb" * N + "\u6f22"` utilize the `valid_contexto` function prior to length rejection, and for high values of `N` will take a long time to process. This is the same issue as CVE-2024-3651, however the original remediation in 2024 was not a complete fix. A specially crafted argument to the `idna.encode()` function could consume significant resources. This may lead to a denial-of-service. Starting in version 3.14, the function rejects long inputs as soon as practicable prior to any further processing to minimize resource consumption. In version 3.15, this approach was extended to lesser used alternate functions (i.e. per-label conversions and codec support). A workaround is available. Domain names cannot exceed 253 characters in length. If this length limit is enforced prior to passing the domain to the `idna.encode()` function, it should no longer consume significant resources. This is triggered by arbitrarily large inputs that would not occur in normal usage, but may be passed to the library assuming there is no preliminary input validation by the higher-level application.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-11431
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Projects Service download endpoint shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. An authenticated user can supply a crafted path parameter that bypasses validation, allowing arbitrary files (including entire directories returned as archives) to be read from the server filesystem. Because the readable files include service configuration and credential material, exploitation can be used to gather information enabling further compromise. The issue can be combined with CVE-2026-11424 to reach the cloud-side endpoint. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, the readable configuration could have exposed credentials shared across services. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-11429
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Git Service component shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. The service accepts a sequence of post-clone file-manipulation operations that use user-supplied paths without validation, allowing an authenticated user with basic git access to move arbitrary files outside the intended repository area. This file-move primitive can be used to place attacker-controlled script content into directories where it is later executed by the service, resulting in remote code execution under the Git Service account. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, this could have allowed access to data belonging to other tenants on the same infrastructure node. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA