Comparison Overview

OneBlood

VS

Nova Scotia Health Authority

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

Nova Scotia Health Authority

1276 South Park Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA, B3H 2Y9
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749

We are Nova Scotia Health. We are rural and urban. We are in hospitals, health centres and community. We serve individuals and communities from Yarmouth to Cape Breton, from Amherst to Halifax, and everything in between. We are researchers and learners, looking for new ways to prevent and treat disease and maintain health. We are partners – with community groups, schools, government, foundations and auxiliaries, community health boards and, most importantly, with you. Most of all, we are a community of caring, compassionate people who care deeply about health, healing and learning. Together with you, we will create a healthier Nova Scotia. Mission: Working together to achieve excellence in health, healing and learning Vision: Healthy people, healthy communities – for generations

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 10,255
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

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/nsha.jpeg
Nova Scotia Health Authority
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
Nova Scotia Health Authority
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 Nova Scotia Health Authority in 2025.

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

OneBlood cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Nova Scotia Health Authority (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nova Scotia Health Authority 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/nsha.jpeg
Nova Scotia Health Authority
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2017
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Nova Scotia Health Authority company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to OneBlood company.

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

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

Both Nova Scotia Health Authority company and OneBlood company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Nova Scotia Health Authority company nor OneBlood company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither OneBlood company nor Nova Scotia Health Authority company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither OneBlood nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither OneBlood company nor Nova Scotia Health Authority company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

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

Neither OneBlood nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Nova Scotia Health Authority holds HIPAA certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Nova Scotia Health Authority 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