Comparison Overview

EHR.Network

VS

CGI

EHR.Network

No.39, 2nd Floor, NGEF Lane, Bangalore, 560038, IN
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://http://ehr.network

EHR.Network is a data-first platform powered by openEHR for various stakeholders of the healthcare ecosystem. EHR.Network unlocks data value by making it accessible and inter-operable for companies and individuals to generate insights, securely within and across organizations. Value creation is linked to data access and use. Value is generated by the insights resulting from asking better questions of data - whether it belongs to companies themselves or to others with whom they can partner. We are an open standards based Healthcare Information Platform. It is aligned to EHR standards and is designed to accept data from any source, normalize them and present them as an integrated, comprehensive EHR data of a person. This person centric EHR data is intended to be freely shareable with any person authorized to view it. The platform provides open APIs and SDKs to enable third parties to develop healthcare related applications that leverage the EHR data on the platform to provide enhanced services.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

CGI

Worldwide, Worldwide, CA, 00
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 750 and 799
https://cgi.com

Insights you can act on. Founded in 1976, CGI is among the largest IT and business consulting services firms in the world. We are insights-driven and outcomes-focused to help accelerate returns on your investments. Across hundreds of locations worldwide, we provide comprehensive, scalable and sustainable IT and business consulting services that are informed globally and delivered locally. We value your opinions and welcome your comments and questions on our posts here on LinkedIn. Please keep a polite, professional and constructive tone. We remove comments containing objectionable language and derogatory views. We do not allow content that is unrelated to the subject, and we remove discriminatory and racist comments as well as spam and advertising. Note that content on this page contains general information regarding CGI’s services and initiatives and should not be considered direct business advice. To engage in a discussion with one of our experts, please make a request through https://www.cgi.com/en/contact-us

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 70,253
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ehrnetwork.jpeg
EHR.Network
—
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/cgi.jpeg
CGI
—
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
EHR.Network
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CGI
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EHR.Network in 2026.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CGI in 2026.

Incident History — EHR.Network (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EHR.Network cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

CGI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ehrnetwork.jpeg
EHR.Network
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party Vendor Compromise
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cgi.jpeg
CGI
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CGI company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to EHR.Network company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

EHR.Network company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CGI company has not reported any.

In the current year, CGI company and EHR.Network company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CGI company nor EHR.Network company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

EHR.Network company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other CGI company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CGI company nor EHR.Network company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither EHR.Network company nor CGI company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither EHR.Network nor CGI holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CGI company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to EHR.Network company.

CGI company employs more people globally than EHR.Network company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither EHR.Network nor CGI holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither EHR.Network nor CGI holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither EHR.Network nor CGI holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither EHR.Network nor CGI holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither EHR.Network nor CGI holds HIPAA certification.

Neither EHR.Network nor CGI holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References