Comparison Overview

MD Live by Evernorth

VS

UMass Memorial Health

MD Live by Evernorth

3350 SW 148th Ave, Suite 300, Miramar, Florida, US, 33027
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 700 and 749

MD Live by Evernorth is a leading provider of virtual health care services in the U.S. with more than 60 million members nationwide. We work with our health plan, health system, and self-insured employer partners to give patients convenient and affordable access to the highest quality medical and behavioral health care, 24/7, from the comfort and safety of their homes. With a vision and passion for changing health care for the better, we are working to improve the patient experience, close the patient-provider accessibility gap, and bring providers opportunities to augment the services they currently offer. We imagine a new end-to-end care experience to complement – not replace – the way customers and patients interact with their existing providers to achieve: • Earlier identification and diagnosis of critical care needs • Faster and more seamless referrals to high-performing providers, including specialists and behavioral health • More convenient access to appropriate, affordable sites of service, and pharmaceutical fulfillment

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 495
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

UMass Memorial Health

Worcester, Massachusetts, US
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 750 and 799

UMass Memorial Health is the health and wellness partner of the people of Central Massachusetts. Through pain and pandemics, our commitment to our communities never wanes. We use knowledge and innovation to create breakthrough medicine, to create jobs, and to make life better for those we serve. We are leaders in the training of physicians and those who work in every facet of health care. We make outstanding care accessible for all, regardless of ability to pay. We stand for quality, compassion, dignity, opportunity and fairness. And we are relentless in our pursuit of healing. UMass Memorial Health is the largest health care system in Central Massachusetts. We are the clinical partner of the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, with access to the latest technology, research and clinical trials. UMass Memorial Health: Locations in Central Massachusetts Our locations include: • UMass Memorial Medical Center (Worcester) • UMass Memorial Health – HealthAlliance-Clinton Hospital (Fitchburg, Clinton and Leominster) • UMass Memorial Health – Marlborough Hospital (Marlborough) • UMass Memorial Health - Harrington (Southbridge, Webster) • UMass Memorial Health - Milford Regional (Milford) • Community Healthlink (Worcester, Leominster) We have an affiliation with CareWell Urgent Care to provide regional urgent care services. Also, the UMass Memorial Medical Group provides high quality, low-cost outpatient surgery services at The Surgery Center in Shrewsbury. UMass Memorial Health Care by the numbers: 2,400 physicians on our active medical staff 3,000 registered nurses 20,000 total employees 1,200 beds in our hospitals

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 10,577
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/mdlive-inc-.jpeg
MD Live by Evernorth
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/umassmemorialhealth.jpeg
UMass Memorial 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 Live by Evernorth
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UMass Memorial 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 Live by Evernorth in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for UMass Memorial Health in 2026.

Incident History — MD Live by Evernorth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MD Live by Evernorth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

UMass Memorial Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mdlive-inc-.jpeg
MD Live by Evernorth
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/umassmemorialhealth.jpeg
UMass Memorial Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

UMass Memorial Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to MD Live by Evernorth company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

MD Live by Evernorth company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas UMass Memorial Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, UMass Memorial Health company and MD Live by Evernorth company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither UMass Memorial Health company nor MD Live by Evernorth company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

MD Live by Evernorth company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other UMass Memorial Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither UMass Memorial Health company nor MD Live by Evernorth company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth company nor UMass Memorial Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth nor UMass Memorial Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth company nor UMass Memorial Health company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

UMass Memorial Health company employs more people globally than MD Live by Evernorth company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth nor UMass Memorial Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth nor UMass Memorial Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth nor UMass Memorial Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth nor UMass Memorial Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth nor UMass Memorial Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither MD Live by Evernorth nor UMass Memorial 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