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

Comparison Overview

Klinikum Esslingen GmbHKlinikum Esslingen GmbH
VS
Johnson & JohnsonJohnson & Johnson
Klinikum Esslingen GmbH

Klinikum Esslingen GmbH

Hirschlandstraße 97, Esslingen am Neckar, 73730, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
724/1000Moderate

"Here is different" is not just a phrase, but a motto that is lived every day. Klinikum Esslingen is a hospital of central supply, which lives from and through diversity, has a family character, is characterized by innovations and is deeply rooted in the city of Essling...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:312
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson

New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08903

Last Update: 28/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.jnj.com
778/1000Fair

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...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:118,425
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Klinikum Esslingen GmbH

Klinikum Esslingen GmbH

-
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
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson

-
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 Klinikum Esslingen GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

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

Johnson & Johnson has 92.31% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Klinikum Esslingen GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Klinikum Esslingen GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Johnson & Johnson 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...
Klinikum Esslingen GmbH

Klinikum Esslingen GmbH

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLI1125224
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ERIDEFJOHROLVID1772180734
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOHROLERI1772202424
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOH333071125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1