Comparison Overview

Houston Radiology Associated (HRA)

VS

BJC Health

Houston Radiology Associated (HRA)

2190 North Loop W, Houston, 77008, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) is one of the most trusted and well established radiology practices in Texas. Serving the Houston metropolitan area and Houston Methodist health system for over 70 years, HRA incorporates sub-specialty training to remain at the forefront of imaging and therapeutic modalities. Our physicians have attended some of the most prestigious medical schools in the country, and several went on to serve as Chief Resident and honed their skills by completing Fellowships. At Houston Methodist, board-certified radiologists use the newest imaging technologies to provide patients the most accurate diagnoses, recommend the best possible treatments and administer minimally invasive therapies.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 39
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

BJC Health

4901 Forest Park Avenue, St. Louis, MO, US, 63108
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 750 and 799

BJC Health System is one of the largest nonprofit health care organizations in the United States and the largest in the state of Missouri, serving urban, suburban, and rural communities across Missouri, southern Illinois, eastern Kansas, and the greater Midwest region. One of the largest employers in Missouri, BJC operates as BJC HealthCare in its Eastern Region and as Saint Luke’s Health System in its Western Region. BJC comprises 24 hospitals and hundreds of clinics and service organizations all committed to providing extraordinary patient care and advancing medical breakthroughs. BJC’s nationally recognized academic hospitals—Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children’s hospitals—are affiliated with Washington University School of Medicine.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,305
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/houston-radiology-associated.jpeg
Houston Radiology Associated (HRA)
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/bjc-health.jpeg
BJC 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 Radiology Associated (HRA)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BJC 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 Radiology Associated (HRA) in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for BJC Health in 2026.

Incident History — Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

BJC 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-radiology-associated.jpeg
Houston Radiology Associated (HRA)
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bjc-health.jpeg
BJC Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Configuration Error
Blog: Blog

FAQ

BJC Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) and BJC Health have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, BJC Health company and Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BJC Health company nor Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both BJC Health company and Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither BJC Health company nor Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company nor BJC Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) nor BJC Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BJC Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company.

BJC Health company employs more people globally than Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) nor BJC Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) nor BJC Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) nor BJC Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) nor BJC Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) nor BJC Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Houston Radiology Associated (HRA) nor BJC 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