Comparison Overview

Mayo Clinic

VS

LUX MED

Mayo Clinic

200 First St. S.W., Rochester, Minnesota, US, 55905
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 800 and 849

Mayo Clinic has expanded and changed in many ways, but our values remain true to the vision of our founders. Our primary value – The needs of the patient come first – guides our plans and decisions as we create the future of health care. Join us and you'll find a culture of teamwork, professionalism and mutual respect, and most importantly, a life-changing career. Mayo Clinic was founded in Rochester, Minnesota by brothers Dr. William James Mayo and Dr. Charles Horace Mayo. More than 100 years later, their vision continues to evolve around a single guiding value: "The needs of the patient come first." Today we are the largest integrated, not for-profit medical group practice in the world. We are recognized for high-quality patient care more than any other academic medical center in the nation. These endorsements are very gratifying, but also humbling. They remind us of the tradition that has been entrusted to each one of us, and the legacy of excellence that we uphold every day.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 47,611
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

LUX MED

Szturmowa 2 Warszawa, 02-678, PL
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

LUX MED - leader and trustworthy expert We care for the health of the patients professionally and with engagement, we have been developing our business for over 20 years. Today we are the leader and expert on the private healthcare market. We take under our care both individual patients and corporate ones and their families. Out-patient activity is realized under two leading and complementary brands - LUX MED and Medycyna Rodzinna. We have an impressive network, which is created by over 1600 facilities with modern equipment throughout Poland, where we diagnose, examine and treat over 1 200 000 patients. We already have our own 114 medical centers, 1500 cooperating facilities and one of the biggest in Poland private diagnostic database. In 2010 we opened a hospital in Warsaw. We have over 8500 employees, including 4100 medical doctors of various specialties. Trust, satisfaction and health of the patients are values that we put great importance to. Meeting your expectations we are still perfecting our standards and implementing new solutions to provide constantly high quality of services, easy access to the doctors, consultations and examinations.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
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/mayo-clinic.jpeg
Mayo Clinic
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/lux-med.jpeg
LUX MED
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
Mayo Clinic
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LUX MED
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 Mayo Clinic in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for LUX MED in 2026.

Incident History — Mayo Clinic (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mayo Clinic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — LUX MED (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LUX MED cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mayo-clinic.jpeg
Mayo Clinic
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lux-med.jpeg
LUX MED
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mayo Clinic company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LUX MED company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, LUX MED company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Mayo Clinic company.

In the current year, LUX MED company and Mayo Clinic company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither LUX MED company nor Mayo Clinic company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither LUX MED company nor Mayo Clinic company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither LUX MED company nor Mayo Clinic company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mayo Clinic company nor LUX MED company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor LUX MED holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mayo Clinic company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LUX MED company.

Mayo Clinic company employs more people globally than LUX MED company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor LUX MED holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor LUX MED holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor LUX MED holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor LUX MED holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor LUX MED holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor LUX MED holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N