Comparison Overview
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson
New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08903
Last Update: 07/10/2026
At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. Our strength in healthcare innovation empowers us to build a world where complex diseases are prevented, treated, and cured, where treatments are smarter and less invasive, and solutions are personal. Through our ex...

Netcare
76 Maude street (corner West street), Johannesburg, 2196, ZA
Last Update: 04/09/2026
The Netcare Group (JSE: NTC) offers a unique, comprehensive range of medical services across the healthcare spectrum, enabling us to serve the health and care needs of each individual who entrust their care to us. Our focus on implementing sophisticated digital systems ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Johnson & Johnson







Netcare






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)
Johnson & Johnson has 41.84% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Netcare in 2026.
Incident History - Johnson & Johnson (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Johnson & Johnson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Netcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Netcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Johnson & Johnson

Netcare
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.