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
The University of Texas Medical BranchThe University of Texas Medical Branch
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
The University of Texas Medical Branch

The University of Texas Medical Branch

301 University Blvd, Galveston, Texas, US, 77550

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://utmb.jobs
780/1000Fair

The first academic health center in Texas opened its doors in 1891 and today has four campuses, five health sciences schools, seven institutes for advanced study, a research enterprise that includes one of only two national laboratories dedicated to the safe study of in...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:11,743
Subsidiaries:0
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
The University of Texas Medical Branch

The University of Texas Medical Branch

-
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 The University of Texas Medical Branch 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 - The University of Texas Medical Branch (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Texas Medical Branch 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.
The University of Texas Medical Branch

The University of Texas Medical Branch

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA