Comparison Overview

EsSalud

VS

Medical University of South Carolina

EsSalud

120 Jirón Domingo Cueto, Jesús María, Lima, PE, 15072
Last Update: 2025-11-20

El Seguro Social de Salud, EsSalud, es un organismo público descentralizado, con personería jurídica de derecho público interno, adscrito al Sector Trabajo y Promoción Social. Tiene por finalidad dar cobertura a los asegurados y sus derechohabientes, a través del otorgamiento de prestaciones de prevención, promoción, recuperación, rehabilitación, prestaciones económicas, y prestaciones sociales que corresponden al régimen contributivo de la Seguridad Social en Salud, así como otros seguros de riesgos humanos.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 16,002
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Medical University of South Carolina

45 Courtenay Drive,, Charleston, sc, 29425, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) is a public institution of higher learning the purpose of which is to preserve and optimize human life in South Carolina and beyond. The university provides an interprofessional environment for learning and discovery through education of health care professionals and biomedical scientists, research in the health sciences and provision of comprehensive health care.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,577
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/essalud.jpeg
EsSalud
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/medical-university-of-south-carolina.jpeg
Medical University of South Carolina
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
EsSalud
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Medical University of South Carolina
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 EsSalud in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Medical University of South Carolina in 2025.

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

EsSalud cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Medical University of South Carolina (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Medical University of South Carolina cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/essalud.jpeg
EsSalud
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/medical-university-of-south-carolina.jpeg
Medical University of South Carolina
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

EsSalud company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Medical University of South Carolina company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Medical University of South Carolina company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to EsSalud company.

In the current year, Medical University of South Carolina company and EsSalud company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina company nor EsSalud company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina company nor EsSalud company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina company nor EsSalud company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither EsSalud company nor Medical University of South Carolina company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither EsSalud nor Medical University of South Carolina holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither EsSalud company nor Medical University of South Carolina company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

EsSalud company employs more people globally than Medical University of South Carolina company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither EsSalud nor Medical University of South Carolina holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither EsSalud nor Medical University of South Carolina holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither EsSalud nor Medical University of South Carolina holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither EsSalud nor Medical University of South Carolina holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither EsSalud nor Medical University of South Carolina holds HIPAA certification.

Neither EsSalud nor Medical University of South Carolina holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H