Comparison Overview

Johns Hopkins Medicine

VS

Sanford Health

Johns Hopkins Medicine

600 N. Wolfe Street, None, Baltimore, MD, US, 21231
Last Update: 2026-01-17

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: 37,532
Subsidiaries: 25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Sanford Health

-, Sioux Falls, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

Sanford Health is the largest rural health system in the U.S. Our organization is dedicated to transforming the health care experience and providing access to world-class health care in America’s heartland. Headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, we serve more than one million patients and 220,000 health plan members across 250,000 square miles. Our integrated health system has 47 medical centers, 2,800 physicians and advanced practice providers, 170 clinical investigators and research scientists, more than 200 Good Samaritan Society senior care locations, and world clinics in eight countries around the globe. Learn more about our commitment to shaping the future of rural health care at sanfordhealth.org or Sanford Health News.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,889
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sanford-health.jpeg
Sanford 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
Johns Hopkins Medicine
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sanford 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 Johns Hopkins Medicine in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Sanford Health in 2026.

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

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

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

Sanford Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sanford-health.jpeg
Sanford Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Johns Hopkins Medicine and Sanford Health have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Johns Hopkins Medicine nor Sanford Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

Neither Johns Hopkins Medicine nor Sanford Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Johns Hopkins Medicine nor Sanford Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Johns Hopkins Medicine nor Sanford Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Johns Hopkins Medicine nor Sanford 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