Comparison Overview

NSW Health

VS

Johnson & Johnson

NSW Health

1 Reserve Road, None, St. Leonards, New South Wales, AU, 2065
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

​​​​​​​With more than 170,000 staff and 228 hospitals, there are millions of ways we are enriching the health of the NSW community every day. In front of a patient, working in a kitchen, developing new treatments, or at a desk, each one of our staff is a vital member of the largest health organisation in Australia. What binds us is our shared passion and commitment to caring for people. We’re empowering staff to work to their full potential and equip people with skills and capabilities to be agile and responsive. ​​​Join the team enriching health in millions of ways every ​day. Find out more: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/Pages/benefits.aspx View our social media community guidelines here: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/social/Pages/community-guidelines

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,121
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Johnson & Johnson

New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08903
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. As a focused healthcare company, with expertise in Innovative Medicine and MedTech, we’re empowered to tackle the world’s toughest health challenges, innovate through science and technology, and transform patient care. ​ All of this is possible because of our people. We’re passionate innovators who put people first, and through our purpose-driven culture and talented workforce, we are stronger than ever. ​ Learn more at https://www.jnj.com. Community Guidelines: http://www.jnj.com/social-media-community-guidelines

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 108,305
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nsw-health.jpeg
NSW 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
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
NSW Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Johnson & Johnson
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 NSW Health in 2025.

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

Johnson & Johnson has 33.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

NSW Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Johnson & Johnson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson & Johnson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nsw-health.jpeg
NSW Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2018
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain (Plaintiffs), Corporate Accountability, Consumer Protection
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Johnson & Johnson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to NSW Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Johnson & Johnson company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to NSW Health company.

In the current year, Johnson & Johnson company has reported more cyber incidents than NSW Health company.

Neither Johnson & Johnson company nor NSW Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Johnson & Johnson company and NSW Health company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Johnson & Johnson company nor NSW Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither NSW Health company nor Johnson & Johnson company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither NSW Health nor Johnson & Johnson holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Johnson & Johnson company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to NSW Health company.

Johnson & Johnson company employs more people globally than NSW Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither NSW Health nor Johnson & Johnson holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither NSW Health nor Johnson & Johnson holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither NSW Health nor Johnson & Johnson holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither NSW Health nor Johnson & Johnson holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither NSW Health nor Johnson & Johnson holds HIPAA certification.

Neither NSW Health nor Johnson & Johnson holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H