Comparison Overview

Henry Ford Health

VS

Ascension

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

Ascension

101 South Hanley Rd., Suite 450, St. Louis, MO, US, 63105
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 0 and 549

Answering God's call to bring health, healing and hope to all. Ascension is one of the nation’s leading non-profit and Catholic health systems, with a Mission of delivering compassionate, personalized care to all, with special attention to those most vulnerable. In FY2025, Ascension provided $1.7 billion in care of persons living in poverty and other community benefit programs along with $1.8 billion of unreimbursed care for Medicare patients. Across 16 states and the District of Columbia, Ascension’s network encompasses approximately 99,000 associates, 22,300 aligned providers, 95 wholly owned or consolidated hospitals, and ownership interests in 26 additional hospitals through partnerships. Ascension also operates 30 senior living facilities and a variety of other care sites offering a range of healthcare services.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 65,854
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ascensionorg.jpeg
Ascension
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
Henry Ford Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ascension
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 Henry Ford Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Ascension in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — Ascension (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ascension cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ascensionorg.jpeg
Ascension
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Vulnerability in third-party software
Motivation: Data theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Ascension company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Henry Ford Health company.

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

Ascension company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Henry Ford Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Ascension company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Henry Ford Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Ascension holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Henry Ford Health company nor Ascension company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

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

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

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Ascension holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Ascension holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Ascension holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Ascension holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Ascension 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