Comparison Overview

Houston Methodist

VS

Cardinal Health

Houston Methodist

6565 Fannin St, Houston, 77030, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Houston Methodist is one of the nation’s leading health systems and academic medical centers. The health system consists of eight hospitals: Houston Methodist Hospital, its flagship academic hospital in the Texas Medical Center, seven community hospitals and one long-term acute care hospital throughout the Greater Houston metropolitan area. Houston Methodist also includes a research institute; a comprehensive residency program; international patient services; freestanding comprehensive care, emergency care and imaging centers; and outpatient facilities. Houston Methodist employs more than 32,000 people. Come lead with us.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 21,373
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Cardinal Health

7000 Cardinal Place, Dublin, OH, US, 43017
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 800 and 849

Cardinal Health is a distributor of pharmaceuticals and specialty products; a supplier of home-health and direct-to-patient products and services; an operator of nuclear pharmacies and manufacturing facilities; a provider of performance and data solutions; and a global manufacturer and distributor of medical and laboratory products. Our company’s customer-centric focus drives continuous improvement and leads to innovative solutions that improve people’s lives every day. Disclaimer: LinkedIn is a third-party site unaffiliated with Cardinal Health. Cardinal Health is not responsible for the privacy or security policies or practices on LinkedIn or on any of the third-party websites that we may link to through LinkedIn. You should carefully review the privacy and security practices of LinkedIn and linked third-party websites. We do not necessarily endorse any information found here nor are we responsible for the accuracy of any information, opinions, claims, or advice found here or shared here by our followers. By posting content, ideas, or pictures, you grant Cardinal Health a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, and worldwide license to use your content and any images posted by you, including the rights to copy, distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, edit, translate, and reformat, and incorporate into a collective work. Cardinal Health reserves all rights relating to the company's LinkedIn account, including removing postings and prohibiting individuals from participating on the page.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 34,491
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/houston-methodist.jpeg
Houston Methodist
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/cardinal-health.jpeg
Cardinal 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
Houston Methodist
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cardinal 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 Houston Methodist in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Cardinal Health in 2026.

Incident History — Houston Methodist (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Houston Methodist cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Cardinal Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/houston-methodist.jpeg
Houston Methodist
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2017
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cardinal-health.jpeg
Cardinal Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cardinal Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Houston Methodist company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Houston Methodist company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Cardinal Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Cardinal Health company and Houston Methodist company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cardinal Health company nor Houston Methodist company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cardinal Health company nor Houston Methodist company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cardinal Health company nor Houston Methodist company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Houston Methodist company nor Cardinal Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Houston Methodist nor Cardinal Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cardinal Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Houston Methodist company.

Cardinal Health company employs more people globally than Houston Methodist company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Houston Methodist nor Cardinal Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Houston Methodist nor Cardinal Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Houston Methodist nor Cardinal Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Houston Methodist nor Cardinal Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Houston Methodist nor Cardinal Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Houston Methodist nor Cardinal Health 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