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

Comparison Overview

ElderSpan Management, LLCElderSpan Management, LLC
VS
Johnson & JohnsonJohnson & Johnson
ElderSpan Management, LLC

ElderSpan Management, LLC

2445 Darwin Rd, Madison, 53704, US

Last Update: 20/02/2026

View Profile
763/1000Fair

ElderSpan Management, LLC is a family business that provides senior living services of the highest quality in southwest and south central Wisconsin. Our expertise is in successfully managing campuses that provide a continuum of care through independent, assisted and me...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:70
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson

New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08903

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.jnj.com
774/1000Fair

At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. Our strength in healthcare innovation empowers us to build a world where complex diseases are prevented, treated, and cured, where treatments are smarter and less invasive, and solutions are personal. Through our ex...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:118,425
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ElderSpan Management, LLC

ElderSpan Management, LLC

-
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
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson

-
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 ElderSpan Management, LLC in 2026.

Incidents

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

Johnson & Johnson has 86.92% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - ElderSpan Management, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ElderSpan Management, LLC 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 - Johnson & Johnson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson & Johnson 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...
ElderSpan Management, LLC

ElderSpan Management, LLC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ERIDEFJOHROLVID1772180734
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOHROLERI1772202424
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOH333071125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA