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

Comparison Overview

Mount Sinai St. Luke'sMount Sinai St. Luke's
VS
Lehigh Valley Health NetworkLehigh Valley Health Network
Mount Sinai St. Luke's

Mount Sinai St. Luke's

1111 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, 10025, US

Last Update: 20/02/2026

View Profile
766/1000Fair

With 523 beds, St. Luke’s serves as the principal health care provider for the West Harlem and Morningside Heights communities and operates one of Manhattan’s few Level 1 trauma services. Founded in 1847, it is home to the Al-Sabah Arrhythmia Institute, a world-class, m...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:1,205
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lehigh Valley Health Network

Lehigh Valley Health Network

1200 S Cedar Crest Blvd, Allentown, Pennsylvania, US, 18103

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lvhn.org
780/1000Fair

Lehigh Valley Health Network, part of Jefferson Health, is proud to be part of a leading integrated academic health care delivery system. Together, we’re among the top 15 not-for-profit health systems in the U.S., with 65,000 colleagues, 32 hospitals and more than 700 ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:12,022
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mount Sinai St. Luke's

Mount Sinai St. Luke's

-
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
Lehigh Valley Health Network

Lehigh Valley Health Network

-
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 Mount Sinai St. Luke's in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Lehigh Valley Health Network in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mount Sinai St. Luke's (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mount Sinai St. Luke's 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 - Lehigh Valley Health Network (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lehigh Valley Health Network cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Mount Sinai St. Luke's

Mount Sinai St. Luke's

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lehigh Valley Health Network

Lehigh Valley Health Network

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9