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

Comparison Overview

Gleneagles Hospital JohorGleneagles Hospital Johor
VS
Houston MethodistHouston Methodist
Gleneagles Hospital Johor

Gleneagles Hospital Johor

No. 2, Jalan Medini Utara 4, Iskandar Puteri, 79250, MY

Last Update: 21/02/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

Gleneagles Hospital Johor, a branch of Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd under Parkway Pantai Limited, is the first tertiary hospital to provide quality healthcare to the Iskandar Puteri economic zone. Gleneagles Hospital Johor is equipped with cutting-edge medical technolo...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:456
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Houston Methodist

Houston Methodist

6565 Fannin St, Houston, 77030, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
719/1000Moderate

Houston Methodist is one of the nation’s leading health systems and academic medical centers. The health system consists of eight hospitals: Houston Methodist Hospital, its flagship academic hospital in the Texas Medical Center, seven community hospitals and one long-te...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:21,373
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gleneagles Hospital Johor

Gleneagles Hospital Johor

-
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
Houston Methodist

Houston Methodist

-
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 Gleneagles Hospital Johor in 2026.

Incidents

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

Houston Methodist has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Gleneagles Hospital Johor (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gleneagles Hospital Johor 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 - Houston Methodist (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Houston Methodist 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...
Gleneagles Hospital Johor

Gleneagles Hospital Johor

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Houston Methodist

Houston Methodist

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HOULEN1769632931
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
HOU115424722

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8