Comparison Overview

Life Bridge Health

VS

J.P. Morgan

Life Bridge Health

25 Crossroads Dr, Owings Mills, Maryland, US, 21117-5421
Last Update: 2025-12-02

None

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 25
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

J.P. Morgan

270 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10017
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 800 and 849

J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years. Our business has been built upon our core principle of putting our clients'​ interests first. J.P. Morgan is part of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), a global financial services firm. Social Media Terms and Conditions: https://bit.ly/JPMCSocialTerms © 2017 JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer Disability/Veteran.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 78,072
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Life Bridge Health
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/jpmorgan.jpeg
J.P. Morgan
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
Life Bridge Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
J.P. Morgan
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Life Bridge Health in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for J.P. Morgan in 2025.

Incident History — Life Bridge Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Life Bridge Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — J.P. Morgan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J.P. Morgan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Life Bridge Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2016
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Malware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jpmorgan.jpeg
J.P. Morgan
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Software Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

J.P. Morgan company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Life Bridge Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

J.P. Morgan company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Life Bridge Health company.

In the current year, J.P. Morgan company and Life Bridge Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither J.P. Morgan company nor Life Bridge Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

J.P. Morgan company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Life Bridge Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither J.P. Morgan company nor Life Bridge Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Life Bridge Health company nor J.P. Morgan company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Life Bridge Health nor J.P. Morgan holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Life Bridge Health company nor J.P. Morgan company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

J.P. Morgan company employs more people globally than Life Bridge Health company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Life Bridge Health nor J.P. Morgan holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Life Bridge Health nor J.P. Morgan holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Life Bridge Health nor J.P. Morgan holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Life Bridge Health nor J.P. Morgan holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Life Bridge Health nor J.P. Morgan holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Life Bridge Health nor J.P. Morgan holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

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

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/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

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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