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

Comparison Overview

Luz SaúdeLuz Saúde
VS
CHRISTUS HealthCHRISTUS Health
Luz Saúde

Luz Saúde

Rua Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto, 17-9.º, Lisboa, 1070-313, PT

Last Update: 12/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.luzsaude.pt
772/1000Fair

A Luz Saúde foi criada em 2000 e é um dos maiores grupos de prestação de cuidados de saúde no mercado português. O Grupo presta os seus serviços através de 30 unidades (onde se incluem 14 hospitais privados, 15 clínicas privadas a operar em regime de ambulatório e uma ...

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

CHRISTUS Health

919 Hidden Ridge , Irving, 75007, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
747/1000Moderate

CHRISTUS Health is a Catholic not-for-profit health care system comprising more than 600 centers, including long-term care facilities, community hospitals, walk-in clinics and health ministries. We are a community of 50,000 Associates, with over 15,000 physicians prov...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:28,417
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Luz Saúde

Luz Saúde

-
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
CHRISTUS Health

CHRISTUS 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 Luz Saúde in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for CHRISTUS Health in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Luz Saúde (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Luz Saúde cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

CHRISTUS 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...
Luz Saúde

Luz Saúde

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CHRISTUS Health

CHRISTUS Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SOUORACHR1771993857

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59705
SUMMARY

mem0's openmemory/api component contains an unauthenticated access vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read, write, and delete arbitrary user memories by accessing API routers registered without authentication middleware. Attackers can supply arbitrary user_id parameters or directly access memory retrieval endpoints to expose private memory content, or invoke pause endpoints with global_pause=true to cause denial-of-service across all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
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: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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-2026-59704
SUMMARY

Cap's GET /api/video/ai endpoint fails to validate user ownership or membership before returning private video AI metadata including titles, summaries, and chapters. Authenticated attackers can supply arbitrary video IDs to read sensitive AI-generated content and trigger unauthorized AI generation that consumes the video owner's credits without consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55078
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Starting in version 2.17.0 and prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 adds a metadata preflight check that sums projected entry sizes and a streaming writer that enforces the aggregate limit during decompression. As a workaround, restrict file-upload permissions to trusted users or place a reverse proxy with request-body size limits in front of `coderd`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55077
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, the `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. As a workaround, restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-55076
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2