Comparison Overview

Fairview Health Services

VS

Highmark Health

Fairview Health Services

2450 Riverside Ave, Minneapolis, 55454, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Fairview Health Services is Minnesota’s choice for healthcare. We’re an industry-leading, award-winning, nonprofit offering a full network of healthcare services. Our broad network is designed to be ready for our patients’ every need, while delivering quality care with compassion. Our care portfolio includes community hospitals, academic hospitals, primary and specialty care clinics, senior facilities, facilitated living centers, rehabilitation centers, home health care services, counseling, pharmacies and benefit management services. We’re built on a tradition of compassionate care. This is our home, and our patients are our neighbors. We’re here to heal, we’re here for you. We are part of M Health Fairview, an expanded academic health system that represents a collaboration among the University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota Physicians, and Fairview Health Services. The partnership combines the university’s deep history of clinical innovation and training with Fairview’s extensive roots in community medicine. Together, we’re expanding access to world-class, patient-centered care through our 10 hospitals, 60 primary care clinics, specialty clinics, pharmacies, home care, hospice, and medical transportation service. Fairview also operates the Ebenezer senior living communities and offers Employer Solutions such as EAP and pharmacy benefit management. Search for jobs and apply at https://www.fairview.org/careers.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,607
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Highmark Health

120 5th Ave, Pittsburgh, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18

A national blended health organization, Highmark Health and our leading businesses support millions of customers with products, services and solutions closely aligned to our mission of creating remarkable health experiences, freeing people to be their best. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, we're regionally focused in Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia and New York, with customers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We passionately serve individual consumers and fellow businesses alike. Our companies cover a diversified spectrum of essential health-related needs, including health insurance, health care delivery, population health management, dental solutions, reinsurance solutions, and innovative technology solutions. Our financial position reflects strength and stability, with our year-end 2024 consolidated revenues totaling $29.4 billion. We’re also proud to carry forth an important legacy of compassionate care and philanthropy that began more than 170 years ago. This tradition of giving back, reinvesting and ensuring that our communities remain strong and healthy is deeply embedded in our culture, informing our decisions every day.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,521
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fairview-health-services.jpeg
Fairview Health Services
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/highmark-health.jpeg
Highmark Health
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
Fairview Health Services
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Highmark Health
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 Fairview Health Services in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Highmark Health in 2026.

Incident History — Fairview Health Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fairview Health Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Highmark Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Highmark Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fairview-health-services.jpeg
Fairview Health Services
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/highmark-health.jpeg
Highmark Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Account Takeover
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Fairview Health Services company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Highmark Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Highmark Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Fairview Health Services company has not reported any.

In the current year, Highmark Health company and Fairview Health Services company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Highmark Health company nor Fairview Health Services company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Highmark Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Fairview Health Services company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Highmark Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Fairview Health Services company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Fairview Health Services company nor Highmark Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fairview Health Services nor Highmark Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Highmark Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Fairview Health Services company.

Fairview Health Services company employs more people globally than Highmark Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Fairview Health Services nor Highmark Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fairview Health Services nor Highmark Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fairview Health Services nor Highmark Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fairview Health Services nor Highmark Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fairview Health Services nor Highmark Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fairview Health Services nor Highmark Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N