Comparison Overview

Mount Sinai Health System

VS

Advocate Health Care

Mount Sinai Health System

150 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, US, 10017
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

The Mount Sinai Health System is an integrated health system committed to providing distinguished care, conducting transformative research, and advancing biomedical education. Structured around seven hospital campuses and a single medical school, the Health System has an extensive ambulatory network and a range of inpatient and outpatient services—from community-based facilities to tertiary and quaternary care. WHO WE ARE We are compassionate collaborators—48,000 strong—working to heal, teach, and advance medicine in New York City and throughout the world. WHAT WE BELIEVE We believe in challenging the status quo. Forging a new pathway in clinical excellence is only possible by putting the patient at the center of the experience. WHY WORK WITH US Here, innovation is valued and collaboration is integral. Mount Sinai is full of friendly, helpful people who share a common devotion to delivering exceptional patient care. Yet we’re as diverse as the city we call home—culturally, ethnically, in outlook and lifestyle. When you join us, you become part of Mount Sinai’s unrivaled record of achievement, education, and advancement as we revolutionize healthcare together.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 29,627
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Advocate Health Care

3075 Highland Pkwy, Downers Grove, 60515, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Advocate Health Care is proud to be a part of Advocate Health, the third-largest nonprofit integrated health system in the U.S. Advocate Health is the third-largest nonprofit, integrated health system in the United States, created from the combination of Advocate Aurora Health and Atrium Health. Providing care under the names Advocate Health Care in Illinois; Atrium Health in the Carolinas, Georgia and Alabama; and Aurora Health Care in Wisconsin, Advocate Health is a national leader in clinical innovation, health outcomes, consumer experience and value-based care. Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Advocate Health services nearly 6 million patients and is engaged in hundreds of clinical trials and research studies, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine serving as the academic core of the enterprise. It is nationally recognized for its expertise in cardiology, neurosciences, oncology, pediatrics and rehabilitation, as well as organ transplants, burn treatments and specialized musculoskeletal programs. Advocate Health employs nearly 150,000 team members across 68 hospitals and over 1,000 care locations, and offers one of the nation’s largest graduate medical education programs with over 2,000 residents and fellows across more than 200 programs. Committed to providing equitable care for all, Advocate Health provides nearly $5 billion in annual community benefits. Learn more: advocatehealth.org Read our social media community engagement guidelines: aah.org/social

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,045
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mountsinainyc.jpeg
Mount Sinai Health System
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/advocate-health-care.jpeg
Advocate 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
Mount Sinai Health System
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Advocate 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 Mount Sinai Health System in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Advocate Health Care in 2026.

Incident History — Mount Sinai Health System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mount Sinai Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Advocate 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/mountsinainyc.jpeg
Mount Sinai Health System
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/advocate-health-care.jpeg
Advocate Health Care
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Motivation: Unknown
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Mount Sinai Health System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Advocate Health Care company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Advocate Health Care company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Mount Sinai Health System company has not reported any.

In the current year, Advocate Health Care company and Mount Sinai Health System company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Advocate Health Care company nor Mount Sinai Health System company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Advocate Health Care company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Mount Sinai Health System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Advocate Health Care company nor Mount Sinai Health System company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System company nor Advocate Health Care company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System nor Advocate Health Care holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mount Sinai Health System company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Advocate Health Care company.

Mount Sinai Health System company employs more people globally than Advocate Health Care company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System nor Advocate Health Care holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System nor Advocate Health Care holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System nor Advocate Health Care holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System nor Advocate Health Care holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System nor Advocate Health Care holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mount Sinai Health System nor Advocate 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