Comparison Overview

Interior Health Authority

VS

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Interior Health Authority

505 Doyle Avenue, Kelowna, V1Y 0C5, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-18
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://jobs.interiorhealth.ca

With the help of our staff and physicians, Interior Health is proud to deliver high-quality health-care services to the communities and visitors of the Southern Interior of British Columbia. We strive to set new standards of excellence in the delivery of health services in the province of B.C. and our mission is to promote healthy lifestyles and provide needed health services in a timely, caring and efficient manner, to the highest professional and quality standards. Our uniqueness is in who we are and where we are. Our geographical location offers the choice of an active urban lifestyle or quiet rural setting. Whether you’re in clinical care, management, or in a supporting role, your impact will be felt. Your passion and motivation combined with our commitment to set new standards of excellence makes Interior Health the right choice for you. We thrive as a direct result of state-of-the-art equipment, forwarding thinking and strong leadership. We are here for your whole life from career choices to family benefits to work/life balance. At Interior Health there is always room to grow.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 9,816
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
View Profile

Johns Hopkins Medicine

600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, US, 21231
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
https://http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/

Johns Hopkins Medicine is a governing structure for the University’s School of Medicine and the health system, coordinating their research, teaching, patient care, and related enterprises. The Johns Hopkins Hospital opened in 1889, followed four years later by the university’s School of Medicine, revolutionizing medical practice, teaching, and research in the United States. The hospital is now part of the Johns Hopkins Health System, which includes two other acute-care hospitals and additional integrated health-care delivery components, with a network of primary and specialty care practices throughout Maryland, outpatient care, long-term care, and home care. The Johns Hopkins University opened in 1876 as America’s first research university, founded for the express purpose of expanding knowledge and putting that knowledge to work for the good of humanity. Two Interconnected Institutions: Over the years, the University and Hospital have grown, and—sometimes jointly, sometimes separately—they have created affiliated organizations. The Johns Hopkins Institutions is a collective name for the University and the Johns Hopkins Health System. The Johns Hopkins University includes nine academic and research divisions, and numerous centers, institutes, and affiliated entities. Johns Hopkins Medicine is a governing structure for the University’s School of Medicine and the health system, coordinating their research, teaching, patient care, and related enterprises.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 38,244
Subsidiaries: 25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/interior-health-authority.jpeg
Interior Health 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/johns-hopkins-medicine.jpeg
Johns Hopkins Medicine
—
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
Interior Health Authority
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Johns Hopkins Medicine
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 Interior Health Authority in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Johns Hopkins Medicine in 2026.

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

Interior Health Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Johns Hopkins Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johns Hopkins Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/interior-health-authority.jpeg
Interior Health Authority
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Mishandling of Physical Records
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2003
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unspecified cyberattack
Motivation: Data exfiltration and sale on the dark web
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johns-hopkins-medicine.jpeg
Johns Hopkins Medicine
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External Hacking
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Johns Hopkins Medicine company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Interior Health Authority company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Interior Health Authority company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Johns Hopkins Medicine company.

In the current year, Johns Hopkins Medicine company and Interior Health Authority company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Johns Hopkins Medicine company nor Interior Health Authority company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Johns Hopkins Medicine company and Interior Health Authority company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Johns Hopkins Medicine company nor Interior Health Authority company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Interior Health Authority company nor Johns Hopkins Medicine company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Interior Health Authority nor Johns Hopkins Medicine holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Johns Hopkins Medicine company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Interior Health Authority company.

Johns Hopkins Medicine company employs more people globally than Interior Health Authority company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Interior Health Authority nor Johns Hopkins Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Interior Health Authority nor Johns Hopkins Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Interior Health Authority nor Johns Hopkins Medicine holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Interior Health Authority nor Johns Hopkins Medicine holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Interior Health Authority nor Johns Hopkins Medicine holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Interior Health Authority nor Johns Hopkins Medicine holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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
References
Description

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References