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

Comparison Overview

Intermountain Children's HealthIntermountain Children's Health
VS
PhilipsPhilips
Intermountain Children's Health

Intermountain Children's Health

N/A

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile

Inspiring children to live their healthiest lives possible. We’re here to be your family’s care partner—through physical health and emotional well-being, together, you and your family can live your healthiest lives possible.

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:23
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Philips

Philips

Amstelplein 2, Amsterdam, 1096 BC, NL

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
701/1000Moderate

Over the past decade we have transformed into a focused leader in health technology. At Philips, our purpose is to improve people’s health and well-being through meaningful innovation. We aim to improve 2.5 billion lives per year by 2030, including 400 million in under...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:71,631
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Intermountain Children's Health

Intermountain Children's 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
Philips

Philips

-
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 Intermountain Children's Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

Philips has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Intermountain Children's Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intermountain Children's Health 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 - Philips (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Philips 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...
Intermountain Children's Health

Intermountain Children's Health

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Philips

Philips

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ODI1771093701
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PHI258072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA