Comparison Overview

GE HealthCare

VS

Henry Ford Health

GE HealthCare

-, None, Chicago, None, US, None
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Every day millions of people feel the impact of our intelligent devices, advanced analytics and artificial intelligence. As a leading global medical technology and digital solutions innovator, GE HealthCare enables clinicians to make faster, more informed decisions through intelligent devices, data analytics, applications and services, supported by its Edison intelligence platform. With over 100 years of healthcare industry experience and around 50,000 employees globally, the company operates at the center of an ecosystem working toward precision health, digitizing healthcare, helping drive productivity and improve outcomes for patients, providers, health systems and researchers around the world. We embrace a culture of respect, transparency, integrity and diversity and we work to create a world where healthcare has no limits.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 57,635
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Henry Ford Health

1 Ford Place, Detroit, MI, US, 48202
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

*Job seekers: please be aware of fraudulent job postings and phishing scams via LinkedIn. Henry Ford Health only contacts applicants through our human resources department and via a corporate email address. Here are some tips to be aware of: http://ow.ly/Kc0o50EKory Serving communities across Michigan and beyond, Henry Ford Health is committed to partnering with patients & members along their entire health journey. Henry Ford Health provides a full continuum of services – from primary and preventative care, to complex and specialty care, health insurance, a full suite of home health offerings, virtual care, pharmacy, eye care & other healthcare retail. It is one of the nation’s leading academic medical centers, recognized for clinical excellence in cancer care, cardiology and cardiovascular surgery, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopedics and sports medicine, and multi-organ transplants. Consistently ranked among the top five NIH-funded institutions in Michigan, Henry Ford Health engages in thousands of research projects annually. Equally committed to educating the next generation of health professionals, Henry Ford Health trains more than 4,000 medical students, residents and fellows every year across 50+ accredited programs. With more than 50,000 valued team members, Henry Ford Health is also among Michigan’s largest and most diverse employers. President and CEO Bob Riney leads the health system and serves a growing number of customers across more than 550 sites across Michigan. That includes: 13 acute care hospitals; 3 behavioral health facilities including two world-class addiction treatment centers; a state-of-the-art orthopedics and sports medicine facility; multiple cancer care destinations including the Brigitte Harris Cancer Pavilion, Henry Ford Health’s premier location in Detroit; & more options than ever for primary care for patients and families across the region.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 20,800
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gehealthcare.jpeg
GE HealthCare
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/henry-ford-health.jpeg
Henry Ford 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
GE HealthCare
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Henry Ford 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 GE HealthCare in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Henry Ford Health in 2026.

Incident History — GE HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GE HealthCare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Henry Ford Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gehealthcare.jpeg
GE HealthCare
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/henry-ford-health.jpeg
Henry Ford Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2017
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 02/2011
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Physical Loss
Motivation: Accidental
Blog: Blog

FAQ

GE HealthCare company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Henry Ford Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Henry Ford Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas GE HealthCare company has not reported any.

In the current year, Henry Ford Health company and GE HealthCare company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Henry Ford Health company nor GE HealthCare company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Henry Ford Health company nor GE HealthCare company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Henry Ford Health company nor GE HealthCare company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither GE HealthCare company nor Henry Ford Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither GE HealthCare nor Henry Ford Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

GE HealthCare company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Henry Ford Health company.

GE HealthCare company employs more people globally than Henry Ford Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither GE HealthCare nor Henry Ford Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither GE HealthCare nor Henry Ford Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither GE HealthCare nor Henry Ford Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither GE HealthCare nor Henry Ford Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither GE HealthCare nor Henry Ford Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither GE HealthCare nor Henry Ford 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