Comparison Overview

Hospital Authority

VS

HCA Healthcare

Hospital Authority

Hospital Authority Building, Hong Kong, 852, HK
Last Update: 2026-01-18

The Hospital Authority (HA) is a statutory body established under the Hospital Authority Ordinance in 1990. We have been responsible for managing Hong Kong's public hospitals services since December 1991. We are accountable to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government through the Secretary for Health, who formulates overall health policies for Hong Kong and overseas the work of HA.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 12,402
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

HCA Healthcare

1 Park Plaza, Nashville, TN, US, 37203
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

HCA Healthcare is dedicated to giving people a healthier tomorrow. As one of the nation’s leading providers of healthcare services, HCA Healthcare is comprised of 188 hospitals and 2,400+ sites of care in 20 states and the United Kingdom. In addition to hospitals, sites of care include surgery centers, freestanding ERs, urgent care centers, diagnostic and imaging centers, walk-in clinics and physician clinics. Many things set HCA Healthcare apart from other healthcare organizations; however, at our core, our greatest strength is our people. Every day, more than 290,000 colleagues go to work with a collective focus: our patients. Our focus positively impacts the care experience at the bedside and beyond. We are proud of the impact we have in our communities through employment, investment and charitable giving. HCA Healthcare is a learning health system that uses our approximately 37 million annual patient encounters to advance science, improve patient care and save lives. At HCA Healthcare, we are excited about the future of medicine. We believe we are uniquely positioned to play a leading role in the transformation of care. Note: Be alert for fraudulent job postings, emails, and phone calls. HCA Healthcare will never send you money or ask you to send money during the interview or hiring process.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 148,285
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hospital-authority.jpeg
Hospital Authority
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/hca.jpeg
HCA 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
Compliance Summary
Hospital Authority
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
HCA Healthcare
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 Hospital Authority in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for HCA Healthcare in 2026.

Incident History — Hospital Authority (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hospital Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — HCA Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HCA Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hospital-authority.jpeg
Hospital Authority
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hca.jpeg
HCA Healthcare
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Likely financial (data theft for identity fraud or resale)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

HCA Healthcare company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Hospital Authority company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

HCA Healthcare company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Hospital Authority company has not reported any.

In the current year, HCA Healthcare company and Hospital Authority company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither HCA Healthcare company nor Hospital Authority company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

HCA Healthcare company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Hospital Authority company has not reported such incidents publicly.

HCA Healthcare company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Hospital Authority company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Hospital Authority company nor HCA Healthcare company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hospital Authority nor HCA Healthcare holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Hospital Authority company nor HCA Healthcare company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

HCA Healthcare company employs more people globally than Hospital Authority company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Hospital Authority nor HCA Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor HCA Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor HCA Healthcare holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor HCA Healthcare holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor HCA Healthcare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor HCA Healthcare 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