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

Comparison Overview

First Coast Service Options, Inc.First Coast Service Options, Inc.
VS
CencoraCencora
First Coast Service Options, Inc.

First Coast Service Options, Inc.

532 Riverside Ave., Jacksonville, 32202, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fcso.com
764/1000Fair

First Coast Service Options (First Coast) has proudly served as one of the nation’s largest Medicare administrators for 50 years, and is the current Medicare Administrative Contractor for Jurisdiction N (JN), which includes Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Flori...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:603
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cencora

Cencora

N/A

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.cencora.com/
744/1000Moderate

Cencora, a company building on the legacy of AmerisourceBergen, is a leading global pharmaceutical solutions organization centered on improving the lives of people and animals around the world. We connect manufacturers, providers, and patients to ensure that anyone can ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:27,718
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
First Coast Service Options, Inc.

First Coast Service Options, Inc.

-
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
Cencora

Cencora

-
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 First Coast Service Options, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Cencora in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - First Coast Service Options, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

First Coast Service Options, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Cencora (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cencora 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...
First Coast Service Options, Inc.

First Coast Service Options, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cencora

Cencora

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INOCEN1775802306
🔒 Incident : Breach
CEN2702127093025

FAQ

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