Comparison Overview

Lenox Hill Hospital

VS

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Lenox Hill Hospital

100 East 77th Street, New York, NY, US, 10075
Last Update: 2025-11-22

Lenox Hill Hospital is a 450-bed, acute care hospital located on Manhattan's Upper East Side. A staple in the community for more than 150 years, the hospital has earned a national reputation for outstanding patient care and innovative medical and surgical treatments. The mission of Lenox Hill Hospital is to deliver outstanding healthcare with compassion and respect, to promote wellness in its communities, and to advance the field of medicine through education and research.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 3,111
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

MD Anderson Cancer Center

1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, US, 77030
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is one of the world's most respected centers devoted exclusively to cancer patient care, research, education and prevention. MD Anderson provides cancer care at several convenient locations throughout the Greater Houston Area and collaborates with community hospitals and health systems nationwide through MD Anderson Cancer Network®. U.S. News & World Report's "Best Hospitals"​ survey has ranked MD Anderson the nation's top hospital for cancer care. Every year since the survey began in 1990, MD Anderson has been named one of the top two cancer hospitals. The recognition reflects the passion of our 21,000 extraordinary employees and 1,000 volunteers for providing exceptional care to our patients and their families, and for realizing our mission to #EndCancer. You can view all of our career opportunities at careers.mdanderson.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,418
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lenox-hill-hospital.jpeg
Lenox Hill 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mdandersoncancercenter.jpeg
MD Anderson Cancer 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
Compliance Summary
Lenox Hill Hospital
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MD Anderson Cancer Center
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Lenox Hill Hospital in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2025.

Incident History — Lenox Hill Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lenox Hill Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — MD Anderson Cancer Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MD Anderson Cancer Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lenox-hill-hospital.jpeg
Lenox Hill Hospital
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unknown
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mdandersoncancercenter.jpeg
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

MD Anderson Cancer Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lenox Hill Hospital company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Lenox Hill Hospital company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas MD Anderson Cancer Center company has not reported any.

In the current year, MD Anderson Cancer Center company and Lenox Hill Hospital company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center company nor Lenox Hill Hospital company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Lenox Hill Hospital company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other MD Anderson Cancer Center company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center company nor Lenox Hill Hospital company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital company nor MD Anderson Cancer Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lenox Hill Hospital company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MD Anderson Cancer Center company.

MD Anderson Cancer Center company employs more people globally than Lenox Hill Hospital company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital nor MD Anderson Cancer Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lenox Hill Hospital nor MD Anderson Cancer Center 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