Comparison Overview

Medical University of South Carolina

VS

Labcorp

Medical University of South Carolina

45 Courtenay Drive,, MSC 203, Charleston, sc, US, 29425
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.musc.edu

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) is a public institution of higher learning the purpose of which is to preserve and optimize human life in South Carolina and beyond. The university provides an interprofessional environment for learning and discovery through education of health care professionals and biomedical scientists, research in the health sciences and provision of comprehensive health care.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,335
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Labcorp

531 South Spring Street, Burlington, 27215, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799
http://www.labcorp.com

Clear and confident health care decisions begin with questions. At Labcorp, we’re constantly in pursuit of answers. As a global leader of innovative and comprehensive laboratory services, we help doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, researchers and patients make clear and confident decisions. We provide insights and advance science to improve health and improve lives through our unparalleled diagnostics and drug development laboratory capabilities. Our more than 60,000 employees serve clients in over 100 countries, worked on over 80% of the new drugs approved by the FDA in 2022 and performed more than 600 million tests for patients around the world. Learn more about Labcorp (NYSE: LH) at www.labcorp.com.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 41,367
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/medical-university-of-south-carolina.jpeg
Medical University of South Carolina
—
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/labcorp.jpeg
Labcorp
—
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
Medical University of South Carolina
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Labcorp
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 Medical University of South Carolina in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Labcorp in 2026.

Incident History — Medical University of South Carolina (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Medical University of South Carolina cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Labcorp cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/medical-university-of-south-carolina.jpeg
Medical University of South Carolina
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/labcorp.jpeg
Labcorp
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2018
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2018
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Medical University of South Carolina company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Labcorp company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Labcorp company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Medical University of South Carolina company has not reported any.

In the current year, Labcorp company and Medical University of South Carolina company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Labcorp company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Medical University of South Carolina company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Labcorp company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Medical University of South Carolina company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Labcorp company nor Medical University of South Carolina company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina company nor Labcorp company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina nor Labcorp holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Labcorp company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Medical University of South Carolina company.

Labcorp company employs more people globally than Medical University of South Carolina company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina nor Labcorp holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina nor Labcorp holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina nor Labcorp holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina nor Labcorp holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina nor Labcorp holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina nor Labcorp holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References