Comparison Overview

McKesson

VS

Banner Health

McKesson

6555 State Highway 161, Irving, Texas, 75039, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://bit.ly/3xadvB0

Welcome to the official LinkedIn page for McKesson Corporation. We're an impact-driven healthcare organization dedicated to “Advancing Health Outcomes For All.” As a global healthcare company, we touch virtually every aspect of health. Our leaders empower our people to lead with a growth mindset and deliver excellence for our customers, partners, and the wellbeing of people, everywhere. We work with biopharma companies, care providers, pharmacies, manufacturers, governments, and others to deliver insights, products and services that make quality care more accessible and affordable. Delivering better health outcomes for our employees, our communities, and our environment. Every day, we strive to inspire and enable people to reach their full potential. To learn more about how #TeamMckesson helps improve care in every setting, visit: https://bit.ly/3xadvB0

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,564
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Banner Health

2901 N Central Ave., None, Phoenix, AZ, US, 85012
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bannerhealth.com

Headquartered in Arizona, Banner Health is one of the largest nonprofit health care systems in the country. The system owns and operates 33 acute-care hospitals, Banner Health Network, Banner – University Medicine, academic and employed physician groups, long-term care centers, outpatient surgery centers and an array of other services; including Banner Urgent Care, family clinics, home care and hospice services, pharmacies and a nursing registry. Banner Health is in six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada and Wyoming.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 34,176
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mckesson.jpeg
McKesson
—
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
McKesson
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Banner Health
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for McKesson in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Banner Health in 2025.

Incident History — McKesson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McKesson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Banner Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mckesson.jpeg
McKesson
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/banner-health.jpeg
Banner Health
Incidents

FAQ

McKesson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Banner Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Banner Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas McKesson company has not reported any.

In the current year, Banner Health company and McKesson company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Banner Health company nor McKesson company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Banner Health company nor McKesson company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Banner Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while McKesson company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither McKesson company nor Banner Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither McKesson nor Banner Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

McKesson company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Banner Health company.

Banner Health company employs more people globally than McKesson company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither McKesson nor Banner Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither McKesson nor Banner Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither McKesson nor Banner Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither McKesson nor Banner Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither McKesson nor Banner Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither McKesson nor Banner Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References