Comparison Overview

MultiCare Health System

VS

Indiana University Health

MultiCare Health System

315 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Tacoma, WA, US, 98415
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

MultiCare’s roots in the Pacific Northwest go back to 1882, with the founding of Tacoma’s first hospital. Over the years, we’ve grown from a Tacoma-centric, hospital-based organization into the largest, community-based, locally governed health system in the state of Washington. Today, our comprehensive system of health includes more than 300 primary, urgent, pediatric and specialty care locations across Washington, Idaho and Oregon, as well as 13 hospitals. We welcome patients from the entire Pacific Northwest region and our 20,000-plus team members — including employees, providers and volunteers — proudly care for the communities we serve. Without a doubt, our organization has changed over the years. But what has never changed, throughout our long history, has been our dedication to health and wellness of the people of the Pacific Northwest. Guided by our mission, vision and values, we are on continuous journey to deliver the services that our communities need, and to ensure access to those services, now and in the future.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 12,426
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Indiana University Health

IU Health Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, 46206, US
Last Update: 2026-01-15
Between 750 and 799

Indiana University Health is Indiana’s largest and most comprehensive system. A unique partnership with the Indiana University School of Medicine—one of the nation’s largest medical schools—gives patients access to groundbreaking research and innovative treatments, and it offers team members access to the latest science and the very best training—advancing healthcare for all. At IU Health, your personal and professional growth is a top priority. You will have access to many diverse opportunities to learn and develop in meaningful ways that matter most to you, such as advanced clinical training, leadership development, promotion opportunities and cross-training development.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,871
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/multicare-health-system.jpeg
MultiCare 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/indiana-university-health.jpeg
Indiana University Health
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
MultiCare Health System
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Indiana University Health
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 MultiCare Health System in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Indiana University Health in 2026.

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

MultiCare Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Indiana University Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Indiana University Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/multicare-health-system.jpeg
MultiCare Health System
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2022
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Third-party vendor compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/indiana-university-health.jpeg
Indiana University Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Indiana University Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to MultiCare Health System company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

MultiCare Health System company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Indiana University Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Indiana University Health company and MultiCare Health System company have not reported any cyber incidents.

MultiCare Health System company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Indiana University Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Indiana University Health company nor MultiCare Health System company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Indiana University Health company nor MultiCare Health System company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither MultiCare Health System company nor Indiana University Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither MultiCare Health System nor Indiana University Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Indiana University Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MultiCare Health System company.

Indiana University Health company employs more people globally than MultiCare Health System company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither MultiCare Health System nor Indiana University Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither MultiCare Health System nor Indiana University Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither MultiCare Health System nor Indiana University Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither MultiCare Health System nor Indiana University Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither MultiCare Health System nor Indiana University Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither MultiCare Health System nor Indiana University Health 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