Comparison Overview

Michigan Medicine

VS

Ramsay Health Care

Michigan Medicine

1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, 48109, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Michigan Medicine, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is part of one of the world’s leading universities. Michigan Medicine is a premier, highly ranked academic medical center and award-winning health care system with state-of-the-art facilities. Our vision is to create the future of health care through scientific discovery, innovations in education, and the most effective and compassionate care. We want to be the leader in health care, health care reform, and biomedical innovation. Michigan Medicine includes the U-M Hospitals and Health Centers; the U-M Medical School and its Faculty Group Practice; one of the nation's largest biomedical research communities; and education programs that train thousands of future health professionals and scientists each year. We were formerly known as the University of Michigan Medical Center; today that term applies generally to the collection of buildings on our main medical campus in Ann Arbor. We have a close partnership with the U-M School of Nursing and other health sciences schools at U-M. Through the Michigan Health Corporation, we are able to form partnerships outside of our University.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,370
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Ramsay Health Care

Sydney, AU
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 700 and 749

Ramsay Health Care is a trusted provider of private hospital and healthcare services in Australia, Europe and the United Kingdom. Every year, millions of patients put their trust in Ramsay, confident in our ability to deliver safe, high-quality healthcare with outstanding clinical outcomes. We operate hundreds of hospitals, day surgeries, primary care clinics, mental health services, diagnostics and imaging centres across eight countries. Ramsay’s integrated health services are also available at home and in the community through personalised cancer and cardiac care, psychology, allied health, virtual monitoring and telehealth. Ramsay employs more than 90,000 of the best people in healthcare and supports a wide range of teaching, training and research. We are guided by our longstanding purpose of ‘people caring for people’ and driven by our vision to be a leading healthcare provider of the future.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,558
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-medicine.jpeg
Michigan Medicine
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/ramsay-health-care.jpeg
Ramsay Health Care
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
Michigan Medicine
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ramsay Health Care
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 Michigan Medicine in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Ramsay Health Care in 2026.

Incident History — Michigan Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Ramsay Health Care cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-medicine.jpeg
Michigan Medicine
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Third-party vendor compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Email Account
Motivation: Curiosity
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ramsay-health-care.jpeg
Ramsay Health Care
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Ramsay Health Care company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Michigan Medicine company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Michigan Medicine company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Ramsay Health Care company.

In the current year, Ramsay Health Care company and Michigan Medicine company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ramsay Health Care company nor Michigan Medicine company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Ramsay Health Care company and Michigan Medicine company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Michigan Medicine company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Ramsay Health Care company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Michigan Medicine company nor Ramsay Health Care company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Michigan Medicine nor Ramsay Health Care holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Ramsay Health Care company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Michigan Medicine company.

Michigan Medicine company employs more people globally than Ramsay Health Care company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Michigan Medicine nor Ramsay Health Care holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Michigan Medicine nor Ramsay Health Care holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Michigan Medicine nor Ramsay Health Care holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Michigan Medicine nor Ramsay Health Care holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Michigan Medicine nor Ramsay Health Care holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Michigan Medicine nor Ramsay Health Care 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