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

Comparison Overview

Hamaspik Choice, MLTCHamaspik Choice, MLTC
VS
Mass General BrighamMass General Brigham
Hamaspik Choice, MLTC

Hamaspik Choice, MLTC

58 RT-59, Monsey, New York, US, 10952

Last Update: 23/09/2026

View Profile
684/1000Weak

Hamaspik Choice is a Managed Long Term Care Plan (MLTCP) contracted with the State of New York to provide members with a variety of healthcare services. Hamaspik Choice will strive to provide a top patient satisfaction rating. Featuring professionals with years of healt...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:147
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

399 Revolution Dr, Somerville, 02145, US

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
743/1000Moderate

Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic health care system, uniting great minds to solve the hardest problems in medicine for our communities and the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care across a system of academic medical centers, commun...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:18,417
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hamaspik Choice, MLTC

Hamaspik Choice, MLTC

-
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
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

-
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)

Hamaspik Choice, MLTC has 29.58% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Mass General Brigham in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Hamaspik Choice, MLTC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hamaspik Choice, MLTC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Mass General Brigham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mass General Brigham 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...
Hamaspik Choice, MLTC

Hamaspik Choice, MLTC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HAM1790181427
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS548072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS844072325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-102335
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 fails to restrict the advanced_config field to administrators, allowing non-admin users with manage permissions to inject arbitrary nginx directives. Attackers can inject malicious nginx configuration such as alias directives to serve arbitrary files or control routing for their assigned hosts.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102334
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 lacks rate-limiting on authentication endpoints, allowing unauthenticated attackers to make unlimited password guesses against any account. Attackers can brute-force login credentials via POST /api/tokens and subsequently guess TOTP codes via POST /api/tokens/2fa to gain full session access and administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-102333
SUMMARY

httpdbg before 2.2.1 fails to validate URL schemes in recorded HTTP request URLs rendered as clickable links in the web interface. Attackers controlling traffic recorded by httpdbg can supply javascript: scheme URLs that execute malicious scripts in the application origin when clicked, allowing access to captured request and response data including headers and tokens.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102332
SUMMARY

Dozzle versions before 11.1.2 fail to sanitize container display names when building ZIP archive entry names in the log download endpoint. Attackers who can label containers can use path traversal sequences to write files outside the extraction directory when users download and extract logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-101262
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Ziroom ZHOME A0101 1.0.1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /api/ZRQos/set_online_client. The manipulation of the argument ip leads to command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3