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

Comparison Overview

EPIC Management, LPEPIC Management, LP
VS
Memorial Hermann Health SystemMemorial Hermann Health System
EPIC Management, LP

EPIC Management, LP

1615 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, 92374, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
677/1000Weak

EPIC Management, L.P. provides management and consulting services to Southern California multi-specialty physician groups and independent practice associations, including Beaver Medical Group, San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, Pinnacle Medical Group, Redlands Yucaipa Medi...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:261
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
Memorial Hermann Health System

Memorial Hermann Health System

Houston, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
757/1000Fair

Advancing Health. Personalizing Care. Memorial Hermann Health System is a nonprofit, values-driven, community-owned health system dedicated to improving health. A fully integrated health system with more than 260 care delivery sites throughout the Greater Houston area...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:19,509
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EPIC Management, LP

EPIC Management, LP

-
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
Memorial Hermann Health System

Memorial Hermann Health System

-
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 EPIC Management, LP in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Memorial Hermann Health System in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - EPIC Management, LP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EPIC Management, LP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Memorial Hermann Health System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Memorial Hermann Health System 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...
EPIC Management, LP

EPIC Management, LP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
EPI948091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
EPI226080425
🔒 Incident : Breach
EPI239090125
Memorial Hermann Health System

Memorial Hermann Health System

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MEM12145522
🔒 Incident : Breach
MEM308071625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9