Comparison Overview

Johnson & Johnson

VS

Provincial Health Services Authority

Johnson & Johnson

New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08903
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. As a focused healthcare company, with expertise in Innovative Medicine and MedTech, we’re empowered to tackle the world’s toughest health challenges, innovate through science and technology, and transform patient care. ​ All of this is possible because of our people. We’re passionate innovators who put people first, and through our purpose-driven culture and talented workforce, we are stronger than ever. ​ Learn more at https://www.jnj.com. Community Guidelines: http://www.jnj.com/social-media-community-guidelines

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 108,305
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Provincial Health Services Authority

200-1333 West Broadway, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6H 4C1, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Canada's first provincial health services authority. Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) is one of six health authorities – the other five health authorities serve geographic regions of BC. PHSA's primary role is to ensure that BC residents have access to a coordinated network of high-quality specialized health care services. PHSA operates provincial programs including BC Children's Hospital, BC Women's Hospital + Health Centre, BC Emergency Health Services, BC Cancer, BC Centre for Disease Control and BC Transplant. It is also responsible for specialized provincial health services like chest surgery and trauma services, which are delivered in a number of locations in the regional health authorities. For career opportunities, visit www.jobs.phsa.ca or email [email protected].

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,292
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
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/provincial-health-services-authority.jpeg
Provincial Health Services 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
Compliance Summary
Johnson & Johnson
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Provincial Health Services Authority
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Johnson & Johnson has 33.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

No incidents recorded for Provincial Health Services Authority in 2025.

Incident History — Johnson & Johnson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson & Johnson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Provincial Health Services Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain (Plaintiffs), Corporate Accountability, Consumer Protection
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/provincial-health-services-authority.jpeg
Provincial Health Services Authority
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Johnson & Johnson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Provincial Health Services Authority company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Johnson & Johnson company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Provincial Health Services Authority company has not reported any.

In the current year, Johnson & Johnson company has reported more cyber incidents than Provincial Health Services Authority company.

Neither Provincial Health Services Authority company nor Johnson & Johnson company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Johnson & Johnson company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Provincial Health Services Authority company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Provincial Health Services Authority company nor Johnson & Johnson company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Johnson & Johnson company nor Provincial Health Services Authority company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Johnson & Johnson nor Provincial Health Services Authority holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Johnson & Johnson company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Provincial Health Services Authority company.

Johnson & Johnson company employs more people globally than Provincial Health Services Authority company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Johnson & Johnson nor Provincial Health Services Authority holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson nor Provincial Health Services Authority holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson nor Provincial Health Services Authority holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson nor Provincial Health Services Authority holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson nor Provincial Health Services Authority holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Johnson & Johnson nor Provincial Health Services Authority holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H