Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation CenteriHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center
VS
Banner HealthBanner Health
iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center

iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center

250 W Pratt St, Baltimore, 21201, US

Last Update: 12/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.umms.org/iharbor
762/1000Fair

iHarbor leads the way in reimagining health care – bringing to life solutions that enhance quality, elevate outcomes and optimize operations. As the innovation and incubation studio at the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS), iHarbor ideates and purposefully bu...

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

Banner Health

2901 N Central Ave., Phoenix, 85012, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bannerhealth.com
779/1000Fair

Headquartered in Arizona, Banner Health is one of the largest nonprofit health care systems in the country. The system owns and operates 33 acute-care hospitals, Banner Health Network, Banner – University Medicine, academic and employed physician groups, long-term care ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:34,851
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center

iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Banner Health

Banner Health

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Banner Health in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Banner Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banner Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center

iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Banner Health

Banner Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
BAN323622
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BAN357072625

FAQ

Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center company and Banner Health company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center and Banner Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center and Banner Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center or Banner Health ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center or Banner Health ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center and Banner Health, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between iHarbor - University of Maryland Medical System Innovation Center and Banner Health, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8