Comparison Overview

OneBlood

VS

Encompass Health

OneBlood

8669 Commodity Circle, Orlando, Florida, US, 32819
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 650 and 699

OneBlood is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) community asset responsible for providing safe, available and affordable blood to more than 200 hospital partners and their patients. The service area of OneBlood includes the Tampa Bay area, the Orlando-metro area and surrounding Central Florida counties, South and Southeast Florida, parts of Southwest Florida, Pensacola, Tallahassee and areas in Southern Georgia and Alabama. The OneBlood name is a constant reminder of the collective power we share to save another person’s life.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 1,661
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Encompass Health

9001 Liberty Pkwy, Birmingham, Alabama, 35242, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Encompass Health is the largest owner and operator of rehabilitation hospitals in the United States. With a national footprint that includes 158 hospitals in 37 states and Puerto Rico, the Company provides high-quality, compassionate rehabilitative care for patients recovering from a major injury or illness, using advanced technology and innovative treatments to maximize recovery. Encompass Health is ranked as one of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For and Modern Healthcare’s Best Places to Work in Healthcare.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,263
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/oneblood.jpeg
OneBlood
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/encompasshealth.jpeg
Encompass 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
OneBlood
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Encompass 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 OneBlood in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Encompass Health in 2025.

Incident History — OneBlood (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OneBlood cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Encompass Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/oneblood.jpeg
OneBlood
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/encompasshealth.jpeg
Encompass Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

OneBlood company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Encompass Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Encompass Health company and OneBlood company have not reported any cyber incidents.

OneBlood company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Encompass Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

OneBlood company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Encompass Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Encompass Health company nor OneBlood company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither OneBlood company nor Encompass Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither OneBlood nor Encompass Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Encompass Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to OneBlood company.

Encompass Health company employs more people globally than OneBlood company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither OneBlood nor Encompass Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Encompass Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Encompass Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Encompass Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Encompass Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Encompass Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

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

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
Description

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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