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

Comparison Overview

EXL HealthEXL Health
VS
Fresenius GroupFresenius Group
EXL Health

EXL Health

320 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY, US, 10022

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
770/1000Fair

EXL Health combines deep domain expertise with analytic insights and technology-enabled services to transform how care is delivered, managed, and paid. Leveraging Human Ingenuity, we collaborate with our clients to solve complex problems and enhance their performance wi...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:1,809
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Fresenius Group

Fresenius Group

Else-Kröner-Straße 1, Bad Homburg, 61352, DE

Last Update: 04/07/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.fresenius.com
768/1000Fair

Committed to Life - We save and improve human lives with affordable, accessible, and innovative healthcare products and the highest quality in clinical care. Fresenius is a global healthcare company headquartered in Bad Homburg v. d. Höhe, Germany. In fiscal year 2024,...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:19,612
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EXL Health

EXL Health

-
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
Fresenius Group

Fresenius Group

-
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 EXL Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Fresenius Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - EXL Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EXL Health 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 - Fresenius Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fresenius Group 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...
EXL Health

EXL Health

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Fresenius Group

Fresenius Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FRE1770566194
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FRE2038291222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2