Comparison Overview

Jupiter Medical Center

VS

Boston Children's Hospital

Jupiter Medical Center

1210 S Old Dixie Hwy, Jupiter, 33458, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 700 and 749

Highly rated for quality, patient safety and patient satisfaction, Jupiter Medical Center is the leading destination for world-class health care in Palm Beach County and the greater Treasure Coast. In 2023, the Leapfrog Group named Jupiter Medical Center a “Top General Hospital,” a distinction earned by only 35 hospitals nationwide. Jupiter Medical Center is also the only hospital in Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River counties to receive a 4-star quality and safety rating from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Outstanding physicians, state-of-the-art facilities, innovative techniques, and a commitment to serving the community enable Jupiter Medical Center to meet a broad range of patient needs. The region’s only independent, not-for-profit hospital, Jupiter Medical Center offers specialty concentrations in orthopedics and spine care; cancer care and oncology; cardiac and vascular care; neuroscience and stroke care; women’s and children’s services; urgent care; and other key areas.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 1,675
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Boston Children's Hospital

300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, US, 02215
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Boston Children's Hospital is a 404-bed comprehensive center for pediatric health care. As one of the largest pediatric medical centers in the United States, Boston Children's offers a complete range of health care services for children from birth through 21 years of age. (Our services can begin interventions at 15 weeks gestation and in some situations we also treat adults.) We have approximately 25,000 inpatient admissions each year and our 200+ specialized clinical programs schedule 557,000 visits annually. Last year, the hospital performed more than 26,500 surgical procedures and 214,000 radiological examinations. Our team of physicians and nurses has been recognized by a number of independent organizations for overall excellence, and we're proud to share some notable examples with you here.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 17,837
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jupiter-medical-center.jpeg
Jupiter Medical Center
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/bostonchildrenshospital.jpeg
Boston Children's Hospital
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
Jupiter Medical Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Boston Children's Hospital
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Jupiter Medical Center has 18.03% fewer 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 Boston Children's Hospital in 2026.

Incident History — Jupiter Medical Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jupiter Medical Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Boston Children's Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boston Children's Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jupiter-medical-center.jpeg
Jupiter Medical Center
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bostonchildrenshospital.jpeg
Boston Children's Hospital
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2021
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Software Exploit
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Boston Children's Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Jupiter Medical Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Jupiter Medical Center and Boston Children's Hospital have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Jupiter Medical Center company has reported more cyber incidents than Boston Children's Hospital company.

Neither Boston Children's Hospital company nor Jupiter Medical Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Jupiter Medical Center company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Boston Children's Hospital company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Boston Children's Hospital company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Jupiter Medical Center company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center company nor Boston Children's Hospital company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center nor Boston Children's Hospital holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Boston Children's Hospital company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Jupiter Medical Center company.

Boston Children's Hospital company employs more people globally than Jupiter Medical Center company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center nor Boston Children's Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center nor Boston Children's Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center nor Boston Children's Hospital holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center nor Boston Children's Hospital holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center nor Boston Children's Hospital holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jupiter Medical Center nor Boston Children's Hospital 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