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

Comparison Overview

Los Angeles County Department of Health ServicesLos Angeles County Department of Health Services
VS
CVS HealthCVS Health
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

313 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 90012, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://dhs.lacounty.gov
719/1000Moderate

Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS; LADHS) is the 2nd largest municipal hospital system in the United States. With an annual operating budget of over $4 billion USD, DHS operates an extensive healthcare network throughout Los Angeles County, including...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:2,435
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
CVS Health

CVS Health

1 CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI, US, 02895

Last Update: 25/08/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://CVSHealth.com
692/1000Weak

CVS Health is the leading health solutions company, delivering care like no one else can. We reach more people and improve the health of communities across America through our local presence, digital channels and over 300,000 dedicated colleagues. Wherever and wheneve...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:140,188
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

-
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
CVS Health

CVS Health

-
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 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for CVS Health in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Los Angeles County Department of Health Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - CVS Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CVS Health 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...
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LAH435072725
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
LOS114061122
CVS Health

CVS Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CHA455090325
🔒 Incident : Breach
CVS910072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
CVS153930322

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8