Comparison Overview

Hospital Authority

VS

Trinity Health

Hospital Authority

Hospital Authority Building, Hong Kong, undefined, 852, HK
Last Update: 2025-11-21

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: 11,255
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Trinity Health

20555 Victor Parkway, Livonia, MI, US, 48152
Last Update: 2025-11-20

Trinity Health is one of the largest not-for-profit, Catholic health care systems in the nation. It is a family of 123,000 colleagues and nearly 27,000 physicians and clinicians caring for diverse communities across 26 states. Nationally recognized for care and experience, the Trinity Health system includes 88 hospitals, 135 continuing care locations, the second largest PACE program in the country, 136 urgent care locations and many other health and well-being services. Based in Livonia, Michigan, its annual operating revenue is $21.5 billion with $1.4 billion returned to its communities in the form of charity care and other community benefit programs.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 16,726
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/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/trinityhealth.jpeg
Trinity 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
Hospital Authority
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Trinity Health
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 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Trinity Health in 2025.

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

Hospital Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Trinity Health 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/trinityhealth.jpeg
Trinity Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access (Accellion File Transfer Appliance Vulnerability)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Exploitation of vulnerability in Accellion File Transfer Appliance (FTA)
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Cyber-attack on third-party network
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

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

Neither Trinity Health company nor Hospital Authority company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Trinity Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Hospital Authority company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Hospital Authority company nor Trinity Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hospital Authority nor Trinity Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

Neither Hospital Authority nor Trinity Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor Trinity Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor Trinity Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor Trinity Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor Trinity Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hospital Authority nor Trinity 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