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

Comparison Overview

HejdoktorHejdoktor
VS
PhilipsPhilips
Hejdoktor

Hejdoktor

Århusgade 88, 2100 Copenhagen, Copenhagen 2100, DK

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.hejdoktor.dk
825/1000Good

Hejdoktor is Denmark’s leading provider of instant, convenient and high-quality healthcare services. Hejdoktor is also an innovative provider of PaaS solutions with telemedicine and digitalized healthcare.

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

Philips

Amstelplein 2, Amsterdam, 1096 BC, NL

Last Update: 14/08/2026

View Profile
624/1000Poor

Over the past decade we have transformed into a focused leader in health technology. At Philips, our purpose is to improve people’s health and well-being through meaningful innovation. We aim to improve 2.5 billion lives per year by 2030, including 400 million in under...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:74,403
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hejdoktor

Hejdoktor

-
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
Philips

Philips

-
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 Hejdoktor in 2026.

Incidents

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

Philips has 194.12% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Hejdoktor (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hejdoktor 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 - Philips (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Philips 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...
Hejdoktor

Hejdoktor

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Philips

Philips

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PHISHE1786703569
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PTC1774441546
🔒 Incident : Breach
ODI1771093701

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3