Comparison Overview

MD Anderson Cancer Center

VS

M42 Health

MD Anderson Cancer Center

1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, 77030, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
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: 22,634
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

M42 Health

None
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

M42 is an Abu Dhabi-based, global tech-enabled healthcare company operating at the forefront of medical advancement. The company is seeking to transform lives through innovative clinical solutions that can solve the world’s most critical health and diagnostic challenges. By harnessing unique medical and data-centric technologies, including genomics and AI, M42 is transforming the traditional healthcare ecosystem and delivering the highest level of precise, patient-centric, and preventative care. M42 has over 20,000 employees and more than 450 facilities in 26 countries around the world. M42 owns a wide portfolio of assets that includes Amana Healthcare, Biogenix Labs, Danat Al Emarat, Diaverum, HealthPoint Hospital, the HealthPlus network of specialty centers, Moorfields Eye Hospital Abu Dhabi, Imperial College London Diabetes Centre, Insights Research Organization & Solutions (IROS), Omics Center of Excellence and National Reference Laboratory, among others.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 16,168
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/m42-health.jpeg
M42 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
Compliance Summary
MD Anderson Cancer Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
M42 Health
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 MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for M42 Health in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — M42 Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M42 Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mdandersoncancercenter.jpeg
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/m42-health.jpeg
M42 Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

MD Anderson Cancer Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to M42 Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, M42 Health company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to MD Anderson Cancer Center company.

In the current year, M42 Health company and MD Anderson Cancer Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither M42 Health company nor MD Anderson Cancer Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither M42 Health company nor MD Anderson Cancer Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither M42 Health company nor MD Anderson Cancer Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center company nor M42 Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center nor M42 Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

M42 Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MD Anderson Cancer Center company.

MD Anderson Cancer Center company employs more people globally than M42 Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center nor M42 Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center nor M42 Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center nor M42 Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center nor M42 Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center nor M42 Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither MD Anderson Cancer Center nor M42 Health 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