Comparison Overview

Upper Foundation

VS

Porchlight Health

Upper Foundation

undefined, Wilmington, North Carolina, 28403, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Historically founded and known as Health Possible Inc. (2017), the Upper Foundation (2023) supports the services of Upper Health (www.upper.health) by providing financial aid (“charity care”) for qualified applicant’s through Upper’s vetted provider network of holistic and nature-first lifestyle medicine services. Donate today to support affordable nature-first healthcare for people and communities.

NAICS: 923
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 7
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Porchlight Health

2120 Alamosa Drive, Colorado Springs, CO, 80920, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Porchlight Health is a digital communication platform that helps healthcare providers reduce costs and improve outcomes. We succeed where telehealth, remote patient monitoring and other technology first solutions fail. Our unique combination of in-person support and technology gives healthcare providers, community resources, families, and payers the information and access they need to collaborate to support at-risk populations in their homes.

NAICS: 923
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 7
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/health-possible-inc.jpeg
Upper Foundation
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/porchlightapp.jpeg
Porchlight 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
Upper Foundation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Porchlight Health
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Health and Human Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Upper Foundation in 2025.

Incidents vs Health and Human Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Porchlight Health in 2025.

Incident History — Upper Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Upper Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Porchlight Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/health-possible-inc.jpeg
Upper Foundation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/porchlightapp.jpeg
Porchlight Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Upper Foundation company and Porchlight Health company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Porchlight Health company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Upper Foundation company.

In the current year, Porchlight Health company and Upper Foundation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Porchlight Health company nor Upper Foundation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Porchlight Health company nor Upper Foundation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Porchlight Health company nor Upper Foundation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Upper Foundation company nor Porchlight Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Upper Foundation nor Porchlight Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Upper Foundation company nor Porchlight Health company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Both Upper Foundation company and Porchlight Health company employ a similar number of people globally.

Neither Upper Foundation nor Porchlight Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Upper Foundation nor Porchlight Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Upper Foundation nor Porchlight Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Upper Foundation nor Porchlight Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Upper Foundation nor Porchlight Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Upper Foundation nor Porchlight Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H